Benson Bullsh*t: Grab your gun and fight the commies

Posted on May 16, 2013 by Mithryn

 

Ezra T. Benson

President Benson is typically listed as being the “Secretary of Agriculture under Eisenhower” by the church, in order to lend his presidency credibility.  While this is true, this doesn’t incorporate the full story of Benson.

Benson was a member of the John Birch Society, which focused on surviving the Communist threat.  Think “Red Dawn” (The Patrick Swazey version)

“Those kids are like the Mujadin Freedom Fighters led by Bin Ladin” (Paraphrase of two lines from the movie)

Led by Robert Welch, Jr., a retired candy manufacturer from Belmont, Massachusetts. Welch named the new organization after John Birch, an American Baptist missionary and United States military intelligence officer who had been shot by communist forces in China in August 1945.

Welch wrote in a widely circulated statement, The Politician,

“Could Eisenhower really be simply a smart politician, entirely without principles and hungry for glory, who is only the tool of the Communists? The answer is yes.” He went on. “With regard to … Eisenhower, it is difficult to avoid raising the question of deliberate treason.” Quoted at “Glenn Beck talks with JBS President John F. McManus” Aug. 15, 2006.

Interestingly enough, after this was published, Benson tried to turn Eisenhower in to Hoover as a communist. Then Benson tried to get Hoover a spot to speak at General Conference.  This is likely during the period where J. Edgar Hoover was having an affair with a senior staff at the FBI, although Hoovers sexuality is still being debated by scholars.

Regardless, this puts Ezra Taft Benson clearly in control of Welch’s mindset, because before this Benson had asked permission from the first presidency to serve as an ambassadorre, showing that he respected Eisenhower and the prophet.

Last evening, October, 1957, Elder Ezra Taft Benson called me by telephone at my home and asked whether or not he should accept a government appointment to go to Rome, Italy. The American Ambassador to Italy there would like to arrange a conference for him with the Pope. I told Brother Benson that I would talk with my counselors this morning and then let him know.” David O. McKay Diaries, Wednesday, October 2, 1957

In March, 1961 The John Birch society begins opposing fluoridation programs.

May 13,1972 Presidency letter that “fluoridation of public water supplies to prevent tooth decay” is one of the “non-moral issues” that Mormons should vote on “according to their honest convictions.”

Water Flourdiation clearly is helpful in fighting cavities, but Tooele, Utah, even in 2005 still fights flouridation, in large part because of these teachings

Also, Ezra T. Benson quoted a John Birch Society book, “None dare call it conspiracy” and promoted it during General Conference,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJNMcD2IY_k

During my time of learning about all of this (Fluoridation was a big topic in my home because our water was not fluoridated, and my mother purchased fluoride pills in exact dosages for us.  Our family has a history of poor dental care until the fluoride pills, then suddenly, no cavities), Star Trek the Next Generation came on, and a brief few seconds in the pilot episode “Encounter at far point” caught my attention:

“Looking for a few good men to stop the commies”

Suddenly, the idea of stopping the commies, so prevalent in the 80′s was silly.  As ridiculous as the “For sooth” language “Q” was using a few seconds before in the episode.  All of the rhetoric was just bizarre old men fear mongering.  It was as silly as the movie Red Dawn appears today (no, I haven’t seen the remake).  It’s as bizarre as seeing Osama Bin Ladin’s Mujadin in the oval office with Ronald Reagan.

Yup, that’s Reagan, meeting with Osama’s men, because he dedicated the Space Shuttle “Columbia” to them

 

Posted in GA Bullsh*t | Leave a comment

A Lack of Evidence doesn’t show an Evidence of Lack- a new perspective

Posted on May 15, 2013 by Mithryn

Often when I begin discussing MezoAmerican details with members of the church they say something similar to the following:

“We haven’t found gold in MesoAmerica…yet!”

“Lack of evidence doesn’t mean an evidence of lack, we could still find horses in pre-columbian america”

“The obsidian laced wooden swords may have come too late for the Book of Mormon people, but maybe there is more evidence to find”

All of these arguments hinge upon the concept of a very good logical argument that states “Simply because there isn’t any evidence right now, doesn’t mean there never will be evidence”.  And this is true.  We haven’t found any evidence of alien life, but it would be a logical fallacy to imply that meant there isn’t any life form on any other planet.

However, this fallacy is talking about black box scenarios, where we have no information.  When it comes to the points above, it turns out we have quite a bit of evidence, it just doesn’t point in the direction the apologist wants it to.

  • “The obsidian laced wooden swords may have come too late for the Book of Mormon people, but maybe there is more evidence to find”

The issue with this claim, is that we have lots of evidence of the weapons used by the Maya and other MesoAmerican cultures.  It isn’t that we don’t know, it’s that none of the weapons are steel based, or sword like.

The sword the apologists claim is the sword in the Book of Mormon is the Macuahuitl:

A wooden club with obsidian on the sides that cuts like a sword.

The issues instantly arise when one reads the actual text in the Book of Mormon which claims that the Jaredites (From the tower of Babel, about 2000 b.c.) had steel swords:

“…he did molten out of the hill, and made swords out of asteel for those whom he had drawn away with him” Ether 7:9

Not a wooden sword.  Further to complicate things, the Macuahuitl was an Aztec weapon, not a Mayan weapon, and unless the Nephites were really into human sacrifice and were founded and built in the wrong era, the Aztec empire doesn’t match.

But even more to the point, we can watch the Tepoztopilli a spear with a paddle, can be seen over the years growing shorter in the handle, and longer in the blade.  In short, we have lots of evidence of where the Macuahuitl came from, and none of it points to an introduction of advanced metallic technology, which was later lost.

No lack of evidence.

Having a steel sword show up in 600 B.C. MesoAmerica would be something akin to this. Although fiction, the idea of the trans-formative nature of high technology suddenly appearing in a lower technology culture is well portrayed. The owner of the technology becomes suddenly dominant and he rallies all the surrounding people into his cause.

  • “We haven’t found gold in MesoAmerica…yet!“

Gold working did not come to MesoAmerica until about 700 A.D.  That’s 300 years after Moroni buried the gold plates.  800 or so years after Amulek was offered Onti’s and Senums of gold and silver.  And about a thousand years after Noah made a throne of Gold.  See the issue?

This is Aztec Gold with Mayan writing. Still, way too late to apply to Book of Mormon people. Too bad the book wasn’t written on plates of Jade

The progression of gold working and metallurgy has been well documented.  The age of various sites, the locations, and how the technology impacted the social setting of the areas as the technology was passed along isn’t lacking in evidence.  In fact, the evidence is abundant:

Metallurgy first appeared in Mesoamerica at about A.D. 800, introduced via a maritime route from Central and South America into West Mexico. During the initial period of the establishment of the technology (approximately A.D. 800 to between A.D. 1200 and 1300) technical links were closest with the metallurgies of Ecuador, Colombia, and lower Central America. During the second period of West Mexican metallurgy (A.D. 1200–1300 to the Spanish invasion) new elements from these same regional metallurgies were introduced, in addition to technical components from the metallurgy of southern Peru. Although the roots of West Mexican metallurgy lay in the metallurgies to the south, the elements that had been introduced from those areas were reinterpreted and transformed, resulting in the development of a technically original, highly inventive regional technology in West Mexico.  Progression of Metallurgy in Ancient West Mexico

I’ll say it in plain English: Gold working started in Peru, moved up the west coast to Ecuador and didn’t show up in Mayan or other cultures that the apologists tie to the Book of Mormon until 700 A.D., from there it went into Mexico.  No lack of evidence, as we can trace it from spot to spot over a very large time frame.

Just to be clear, all that gold that the spaniards melted down came from Long after the time of the Nephites.  It was not Satan destroying the true records, or that God wanted all the other records hidden, or anything like that.  Everything melted would have been apostate doctrines by that time anyway, because the first writings possible on gold would have been 600 years after Moroni died.

  • “Lack of evidence doesn’t mean an evidence of lack, we could still find horses in Pre-Columbian america”

This is where “Bad ideas” turn into “Outright fraud” or “Gross negligence” in my humble opinion.

For example In this interview, Daniel C. Peterson says that the text of the Book of Mormon says nothing more than that they had horses, and that they fed them:

“And they said unto him: Behold, he is feeding thy horses. Now the king had commanded his servants, previous to the time of the watering of their flocks, that they should prepare his horses and chariots, and conduct him forth to the land of Nephi” Alma 18:9

“And they also had horses, and asses, and there were elephants and cureloms and cumoms; all of which were useful unto man” Ether 9:19

“…the proclamation of Lachoneus had gone forth throughout all the face of the land, and they had taken their horses, and their chariots, and their cattle, and all their flocks, and their herds, and their grain, and all their substance, and did march forth by thousands and by tens of thousands, until they had all gone forth to the place which had been appointed” 3 Nephi 3:22

I kid you not, FAIR actually has this as a possible interpretation for “Horses and Chariots” http://www.fairlds.org/authors/ash-michael/horses-in-the-book-of-mormon

Every time “horses” are mentioned in the text, their usefulness is mentioned or chariots and movement of people are mentioned.  It just seems dishonest to imply the text in no way implies the horses do things more than “Be fed and owned”.

But that’s not the worst of it.  In 2005 FARMS posted a video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkydMSmv1Zo&feature=player_embedded

In this video it mentions a particular horse skull that was found at Spenser Lake.  Now this horse skull was a hoax, and the man who did it came forward and apologized.  Why would FARMS use a skull that was a known hoax?  Maybe they didn’t know it was a hoax?

This is the infamous horse skull

“In this case those conclusions are testable. In 2002 I was contacted by Dr. Stephen Jones of Brigham Young University, a researcher conducting a project on the antiquity of New World horses. He was willing to provide funds for dating the skull using accelerator mass spectrometery (AMS) in order to settle questions regarding the skull’s antiquity. A single sample was removed by MPM staff from the aboral margin of the jaw near the gonion caudale. It was separated into three subsamples, one held as a voucher and the others independently submitted to different radiocarbon labs (Beta Analytic and Stafford Research Laboratories) for AMS dating. The samples were of approximately the same size and yielded results in close agreement. Beta 167209 yielded an uncalibrated date of 110 +- 40 BP; Stafford SR6189 yielded an uncalibrated date of 190 +- 35 BP.”

Wait.. so Dr. Stephen Jones of BYU was the one who conclusively proved the skull wasn’t ancient in 2002?  Three years before the religion department of BYU produced this video?

Mormons did not notice this book and the people involved in requesting the testing did not print the results for other Mormons to see. Science worked, a theory was proven wrong but the results were not published by those who had hoped for a different outcome.

Maybe the video was already made by 2002, and they just didn’t talk to the Physics department of BYU?

In 2008, a non LDS post graduate student informed FAIR of the error and provided them with the source for the 2004 radiocarbon results.

Ah, so they know this video is wrong, misleading, and based on a hoax, and yet they haven’t pulled the video, nor corrected it, let alone producing an apology for accepting bad evidence.

That pretty much indicates fraud.

So you see, it isn’t just a lack of evidence for the Book of Mormon, it is the scores of counter  evidence that apologists choose to ignore when they publish their arguments, and that the average member is unaware of.

Next time someone says something like the above statements you are now well armed to say, “There is evidence, it just doesn’t agree with your conclusions.  Can you tell me why I should dismiss any of the evidence that exists”.

Because really, we can’t let bad use of logical fallacy stand, and if you can point out that the people who use that sort of claim are fraudulently lying to the person… all the better.

 

Posted in Apologetics | Leave a comment

By their Fruits ye shall know them (Dean L. Larsen)

Posted on May 13, 2013 by Mithryn

This post comes from man_without_wax on reddit.  He picked up on this, and it was too good not to share:

“I’ve been thinking a lot about the phrase “by your fruits ye shall know them” and how it is used in the church. In my experience the phrase is basically a cop-out/cover-up whenever a person (or entity) of some authority or standing commits a questionable act. This phrase has been used to defend Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and the church itself. One such example is this talk by Dean L. Larsen of the presidency of the seventy”

(https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1985/10/by-their-fruits-ye-shall-know-them?lang=eng). He states that some documents had surfaced (in 1985) that may cause people to question Joseph Smith.

He says: “In my remarks today I do not wish to make any assessment of the validity of the newly discovered documents nor the extent to which they might, in the eyes of some, affect the reconstruction of Church history. I would like, instead, to point to some ultimate tests that can be applied to determine the divine nature of any religious work.”

Translation: “Let’s just ignore any negative evidence and only look at the evidence in our favor.”

“That’s so infuriating and sickening that it’s hard for me to even continue typing. The statement and its intent are so flawed it’s laughable. And yet, it’s still commonly used and believed as a defense. Here’s the issue. If I do 29 good things and 1 evil thing in a month, am I good or evil? Most of us would likely say good. What about 20 and 10? Still good? What about 15-15? By this statement I’m… neutral? Then, what about if I’m at 29 good things and 1 evil, but that 1 evil thing is REALLY evil. Then what? Which fruit are we to judge by? The statement oversimplifies things to the point of uselessness. If an evil tree can’t bring forth good fruit and vice versa, no one can be judged reliably by this statement except for Jesus and Satan, amirite? I’m sure Hilter did good things for people at some point in his life. I’m also sure Elder Holland has been a dick to people at some time in his life. Yet, when we talk about Joseph Smith, when we question his life/history/motives, we are told to judge by his fruits. WHICH FRUITS?! Bringing about the Book of Mormon gives you carte blanche for the rest of your life?! I’m sorry, that doesn’t fly with me. In fact it’s quite the opposite. I still find it hard to explain away the Book of Mormon, but when I look at the rest of Joseph’s life, all the other damning evidence, I can’t bring myself to believe that a man that terrible (or anything produced by him) can legitimately be of God. Same goes for the church. I know no person or organization will be perfect, but I’m not going to just ignore anything negative because ultimately the church has good teachings. The ends do not justify the means.”

I would like to add, that “I’m judging him by his fruits” is a great rebuttal to “That’s not doctrine, why waste your time with it” or “That isn’t important to your salvation”.  

Posted in GA Bullsh*t | Leave a comment

Ryan Cragun’s “What you don’t know about Religion”

Posted on May 12, 2013 by Mithryn

http://mormonstories.org/ryan-cragun/

User takingstock challenged me to review Ryan Cragun’s podcast with John Dehlin about his book: What you don’t know about Religion (but should).

Now, I’ve been trained as an economist, and part of that were statistic classes, and part of that was reviewing “happiness” studies.  I’m going to give a set of predictions before listening that will include a list of things that are going to make this “junk science”, and then I will listen and write out my thought processes.  At the end I’ll give a summary for anyone who wants to have a “Fast version” and doesn’t care how I think, but just wants to see if I was right.

PREDICTIONS:

  • He’s going to rely heavily on Survey data, asking people if they are happy in their religion.

Why this is bad: If you ask people in China if they are happy, they are going to tell you “Yes”, whether or not they really are, because you might be a government spy.  Similarly, if religious people believe that God can see their every move, they are very unlikely to say “Religion makes me miserable”.

Another way to see this is that an alcoholic will tell you he/she needs another drink to make him/her happy, even if it is killing him.

  • He is going to count every charitable dollar as a dollar well spent

Why this is bad: Because religions like the Mormon church take billions of dollars and doesn’t actually use but .7% (by the apologist, “Everything including the kitchen sink” calculation) to actually help people, this kind of thinking is faulty.  You might as well count all of Walmart’s profits as making people happy.  Or Perhaps the investments of Howard Hughes and Hugh Hefner combined.  It’s a meaningless number because it isn’t actually charity.

  • He is going to group “All religion” together

Why this is bad: Let’s take, for example, every person who ever watched a cartoon, as a group.  Can you see how they would be an amazingly diverse group, that really didn’t have anything in common.  Sure, you could tease out some correlations that if a person watched more cartoons, they were likely to grow up in developed nations, or that they, as a group, tended to like to eat and breath, but it’s really an amazingly diverse group that won’t tell anyone much of anything by analyzing it.

Buddhists, Daoists and such shouldn’t be classified together with Christians.  Hell, anyone that the Christians would have tortured and killed in the middle ages should not be in the same grouping.  Protestants and Catholics once wanted to kill each other, they should be in separate groupings as well.  The LDS hate to be grouped with “All religions that believe in polygamy” so why not split them out on that…

Not that you need to split out groups who hate each other, but you should at LEAST do that.  You see, this appears, from the outside, that the author began with trying to show which religion made people the MOST happy, but when the data didn’t go the way he wanted, he expanded the data set until the dot fit.  Throw in everyone but atheists (and perhaps agnostics) and maybe it”ll match my thesis.

I mean at that point, why not throw in the much smaller groups of non-religions and just say “Being human makes people happy”.

  • He’ll try to mask all this by showing that degrees of religious belief are correlated to his thesis

Why this is bad: I can hear someone in the back say “Correlation is not causation” and that’s true and a good point, but more so, if you throw enough variables into a soup, you can often show all kids of crazy things with regression analysis.  For example, you show that religious people give more, but you don’t explain why (They believe they will go to hell if they don’t, or some other punishment such as removal of temple attendance) and that “why” might actually remove what you are looking at from the definition of “Charity”.

Or you show that religious people have more children, and then graft in a study that claims “Having children makes people happy” and conclude that religion makes people happy.  The problem is that having someone control one’s sex life is negatively correlated with happiness, and ergo, “having children on command” is not necessarily the same thing as “having children”, confusing the actual “What makes people happy” with “What relgion does”, even though the trends are in the data.

Actually listening to the podcast

Enough predictions… let’s see what he has to say

His divisions of religion

(Page 183) There’s not a lot of detail on it, but I like the divisions off hand.  I’m not sure why the religion even matters, it seems like you can divide people into “Moderate, Liberal, Conservative, neutral” without religion being included.  I think he’s confounding religion with just how people are, but it might be the reverse that religion defines people to be liberal or conservative… so this isn’t terribly invalid.

Religion make you happier or not:  Mike Nelson- right to a degree.  A lot of nuance, he says, and I like that.  I find it interesting that only U.S. shows a correlation between religion and happiness.  See my Cartoon example above to explain this.

Why might the non-religions be unhappy:  He explains it might be prejudice.  I can see this, and I like it, but I’ll give my own idea why non-religious might be unhappy in the conclusion.

Most people don’t choose their Religion

Booh-yah.  Well said.  Love this bit.  He’s spot on.  The numbers he quotes, what he’s stating, and so forth… excellent.

Denmark – Happy with no religion

“Religion can facilitate, but is not required”.  Again, he’s removing lurking variables and splitting out details that most researchers skip over.  Well said, and well done.

Progress of humanity includes religion/ religion is part of evolution/non-religion is a luxary

Okay, if you blink you might have missed that he said “I think”.  This whole section doesn’t have data, but he gives some great anecdotal evidence that I think applies to show that religion probably held mankind back (although he doesn’t say that) rather that pushed them forward.  I like his method of approaching it, and he does say “I think” or “I like” throughout.  Well done on his part.

Old killings/evils are not useful to discuss with Religion

I disagree a bit with this, but I like how he approaches it.  He finds that liberals have killed as many as fundamentalists and non-religious.  I have to wonder about his methods, but I’m impressed with the rest of his approaches so he may be on to something.

As John Dehlin says, “Religions is the cart that people are carried off to war in”, with need for resources being the horse.  I like the metaphor, but I think something is wrong that finds that religion is not more or less likely to drive people to war.  We can see that religion’s drum beat motivates people to action, and that action often is used by military/political powers.  I’m not sure what drum beat would work the same to Atheism.

I think he’s probably pretty good on this, but my research brain is screaming that there is a thesis-worthy PHD paper here that would show that religion drives more people and eases their consciousnesses to kill more than non-religion.  The use of the chaplains by Bush in the Iraq war would probably have plenty of data and be a great starting place.

Religion and Education

He tears apart the albecht study in a very pleasant way.  I think his point about blue collar workers not being bishops is fascinating and well stated.  Also the people’s approach to the social scientists in wards… great anecdotal story.

CONCLUSION

Okay, I’ll admit it, I was wrong.  My predictions match up very well with what John Dehlin believed and put forward, but not terribly well with Ryan Cragun’s.  He actually nailed his correction of several of my complaints, and did a great job of separating his own thoughts and anecdotal data from the actual research.

I am impressed.

Okay, my final shot… he says a bit about “Why would non-religions be less happy”, and I think that someone needs to do a study of people who invested with Bernie Madoff, and other 401k investors. I think you’ll find that they are slightly less happy, who invested with Madoff.  In fact I think we could look at all people who pulled out of 401k’s early compared to all 401k investors and see a similar “happiness” score with religions and non-religious.

People who did not get what was promised, or realized that they were going to be cheated in future promises may be less happy, but I think you’ll find that they prefer their choices and would make the choice again, even though it made them “less happy”.

That’s at least the experience I’ve seen from the people I deal with.

RECOMMENDATION: In short, I think this book is definitely worth getting, both for religious and non-religious.  I’m convinced it is real science, and that it puts some serious thoughts.  No, it isn’t perfect, but it gets one’s brain working, and to me; that is far more important.

Posted in Apologetics | Leave a comment

James E. Faust little white lie about kissing

Posted on May 8, 2013 by Mithryn

James E. Faust (First Presidency)

We must wait for the proper season in life to use some sacred gifts; we must prepare for that season. I did not kiss my wife until we were engaged to be married. I have tried to make up for it since! (CES Fireside for Young Adults, 8 Sept. 2002)

Interesting, he says he didn’t kiss until he was engaged to be married.  Let’s just take a little peak deeper:

He attended Granite High School in Salt Lake City… he served as missionary for the LDS Church in southern Brazil from 1939 to 1942… served during World War II in the United States Army Air Corps where he was a First Lieutenant at the time of discharge.

Interesting.

She met her husband-to-be while they were students at Granite High, but the two did not date until President Faust returned from his mission in Brazil and after he was called into military service in 1942.

So they knew each other for let’s see,  3 years plus high school, let’s say 3 more.  6 years.   Not your typical engagement already.

The former classmates finally reunited when Sister Faust was working for her husband-to-be’s uncle at the time in the fingerprint bureau at the state Capitol.

Uncle Jim, I am sure, influenced his nephew, Jim, to pay him a visit at the office in order for him to become better acquainted with me and to see if he wanted to ask me for a date,” she said.

“I must have passed the test because I was invited to the Faust home for Sunday dinner for some of Father Faust’s famous dutch oven chicken.”

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/695251970/Sister-Ruth-Wright-Faust-widow-of-Pres-James-E-Faust-dies-at-86.html?pg=all

On April 22, 1943, Faust married Ruth Wright, whom he had met at Granite High School. The wedding took place during a short leave during his military service, and they were sealed in the Salt Lake Temple.

So, let’s see, he’s home on shore leave, goes to his Uncle’s office, meets a girl he knew in high school, they have Sunday dinner and then they get married.   How long could that engagement have been?

Sister Faust graduated from Granite High School in Salt Lake and attended the University of Utah. While attending school, she worked as a secretary and modeled clothing for a local department store. In 1942 she worked for the State of Utah where she became reacquainted with James E. Faust, a former Granite High School classmate.

So it was during 1942 that she worked for the State of Utah, they married in April 1943, that means it’s somewhere between 1 year and 4 months, and 4 months.  Can you guess which end we’re going to end up on?  here is a hint, shore leave, is typically not 1 year long.

He served in the U.S. Air Force during World War II, discharged as a first lieutenant.  He married his wife during “a short leave period in 1943″.  How short was the leave?

“on a ten-day furlough from officers’ training school in Florida.”http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/prophets-and-apostles-last-dispensation/6-second-counselors-first-presidency/6x-james-esdra

So what it sounds like to me, is that he had a 1 week to 10 day furlough.  He came into his Uncle’s company, met the girl he knew in Highschool (he was a senior when she was a sophomore  by my calculations), and showed up to dinner on Sunday, and there she was again.  Then he left back for the military.  They probably corresponded, and he asked her to marry him.  Maybe there was time for one more furlough before they got married, depending on the date of the “Sunday Dinner” which I cannot find.

So yes, while it is true that he did not kiss his wife until he was engaged to her, it is not terribly fair to suggest that kids, not in the military, not at war time, who may not know their future spouses for years before they start dating follow a similar pattern.

It would have been far more honest to say: “I did not kiss my wife until I was engaged to her.  There was a war on, and we got to know each other primarily through written communication, similar to you meeting and writing each other on the internet”.

Instead of a plea for modesty and not kissing, it is a great marketing message for our digital age, that getting to know each other via communication can make a lasting marriage.

 

Posted in GA Bullsh*t | 2 Comments

What to do if you stop believing and are a student at BYU-Idaho

Posted on May 6, 2013 by Mithryn

I know that students fear doubting because the University threatens to take away their diploma and alter their entire future based on their agreement to the honor code.

This weekend I pled (past tense of “plead”) the case of the BYU-I student who, for one reason or another, realizes the church isn’t true with higher-ups of BYU-I.

At first, they claimed that no one there stopped believing without sinning. I’m not kidding. But after a while, they realized that there might be a /tiny/ number of kids who really honestly didn’t believe, rather than “just wanted to sin”.

After discussing the issue in detail, they admitted they had no course of action for people who didn’t want to be expelled, but honestly had lost faith.

This is the recommended course of action:

  1. Go to your Faculty Adviser. He/She should be your advocate to get you as much as you’ve earned out of the university. He/She will have a list of universities you can easily transfer to.
  2. Another option is to exit the university, and come back in as a different religion. They are discussing making this a painless process. Your tuition will not be supplemented by tithing dollars so prepare for the increase.
  3. If you fear your faculty adviser (Say that you are not willing to submit to them, because He/She is harsh), contact Dr Lines in the physics department. He will act as your advocate.

I think this is a big step, and I think it would be helpful to illustrate how big of a problem this is, to have everyone who is considering contacting an adviser over this issue to at least contact Dr. Lines[1] and let him know that you might be part of this sub-group of non-sinning, but still questioning students.

Helping them know the sheer size of the individuals may even get a dedicated counselor helping people in transition.

Best wishes… it’s the best I could do

-Mithryn

Posted in Current issues | 1 Comment

Rex E. Pinager’s story of Spencer Kimball’s denmark trip, that is Boyd K. Packer’s latest “hard stance” doctrine

Posted on April 29, 2013 by Mithryn

Once upon a time, which is how all the best stories of General Authorities start” President Kimball and the rest of the twelve and several seventies, headed to Denmark for a regional conference.  Rex E. Pinager was there, and related it in the conference report.

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/1976/10/the-living-prophet?lang=eng

They, for some reason decided to go to the Vor Frue church.  It houses some sculptures by artist Bertel Thorvaldsen.

Maybe it has something to do with that this sculpture was done by him, and the Visitor center in Salt Lake copied it without permission

Standing in order along the two sides of the cathedral are the lifelike statues of the apostles, with Paul replacing the betrayer Judas Iscariot. As we looked at those beautiful works of art we noted that Peter was sculptured with large keys in his hands; John is holding scriptures. Others of the Twelve are shown with identifying symbols indicating, for example, the manner in which they earned a living or how they were martyred. President Kimball thoughtfully studied each statue.

This is the famous Peter statue going to be referred to throughout

 As we were ready to leave the cathedral, the Danish caretaker, a man about sixty years of age, was standing near the door awaiting our departure. President Kimball shook his hand, thanked him for his kindness in letting us visit the cathedral.

Awww.  Sweet old men giving gratitude for time spent.

My dear friend, the man who created these statues was surely inspired of the Lord. The beauty and majesty of the Christus are wonderful. While Thorvaldsen was doing his work here, in 1821 to 1844 Joseph Smith was doing his work in America. Thorvaldsen didn’t have the gospel as did Joseph Smith, but he had the Spirit. He must have been inspired to create these statues of Christ and the apostles. He was trying to bring them to life.”

Okay so, I get that this is a missionary experience.  But he’s witnessing to a groundskeeper.  The Janitor/Gardner guy.  Remember that for the next bit:

Gathering President Tanner, Elder Monson, and Elder Packer closer to him, the president continued, “We are living apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ. There are Twelve Apostles and three others who are the presidency of the Church. We hold the real keys, as Peter did, and we use them every day. They are in use constantly.”

The Groundskeeper has been polite.  He showed this wacky little religion from America around in his church to the priceless statues.  And now they’re making a claim, that to him, probably sounded like “And space aliens made me Jesus”.

He then bares his testimony.  Of course, Packer was there, and adds some color on how the prophet of God suddenly shouted in front of the church’s caretaker in 1995:

“President Kimball, this gentle prophet, turned to President Johan H. Benthin, of the Copenhagen Stake, and in a commanding voice said, “I want you to tell every prelate in Denmark that they do not hold the keys! I HOLD THE KEYS!”

Of course, shocking the church caretaker and putting the weight on the Stake President of Denmark while beating his chest that he was better than some statues was a better story than Pinegar’s version and so it was repeated in 1997.  Then it was added to lesson manuals, Published in books (page 128), teacher’s manuals,    and is still in current lesson manuals.

For whatever reason, Boyd K. Packer retold this story in 2008, but a much gentler version, almost more similar to what Rex Pinegar originally said:

“President Kimball pointed to those keys and explained what they symbolized. Then, in an act I shall never forget, he turned to President Benthin and with unaccustomed firmness pointed his finger at him and said, ‘I want you to tell everyone in Denmark that I hold the keys! We hold the real keys, and we use them every day.’”

A german saint says: “I knew “Bruder” Benthin while I lived in Germany and he rehearsed this story to me as well. Neither the prelates of Denmark nor the lay membership of the church hold the keys and the rights to declare doctrine, or to alter the interpretation of scripture in any way. And you can always expect me to remind people of this who try to claim otherwise.”

So why the renewed version of the story, but softer?  I know that the Rome missionaries have been told this story with the harsher words, and that they are copying that church’s Christus and Statues of the apostles for the visitor center of the Rome temple that is being built.

…the visitor’s center is shown with a copy of Thorvaldsen’s “Christus” statue. We have been told that not only will there be a copy of this statue, but of the original Twelve that he did while living in Rome in the 1800s.

So, we love the statues, love the ideas, and Boyd K. loves the idea of pounding the “truth” we have the keys into everyone in Denmark starting with 60 year old’s who watch over churches.

What does this look like from an outsider perspective?

The story underscores the fact that the Mormons claim to be not only one Christian faith, but the unique Christian faith.

http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/2158/revisiting_joseph_smiths_novel_history.aspx#.UX60QqLFV8E

Imagine if Warren Jeffs were to walk up to the Salt Lake Temple Visitor center.  Imagine that he listened carefully, and looked at all the paintings and the Christus there.  Then, as he was leaving he said “We are the living apostles, we have the KEYS!” to the missionaries working there.  How crazy would he sound?  That’s what Kimball sounded like to an outsider.

It reminds me of a line from They Might be Giant’s “Lost my lucky ball and chain”-  ”I can shake my tiny fist, and swear I wasn’t wrong, but what’s the use in arguing, when you’re all alone?”

Why do we repeat this story?  Because we want to convince ourselves that we’re right.  That was why Kimball said it to the caretaker and to those around him.  The caretaker didn’t care.  It was to sell the message to the already converted.  Why didn’t kimball approach the dioceses of the Catholic church in Denmark that day with his message?  Because it wasn’t to convince anyone on the outside, but to fire up the hearts of the convinced that they are right, powerful and needed.

But honestly, it’s nothing more than chest-beating bravado if you can’t back it up with facts and dates; and a simple glance at wikipedia on priesthood restoration (pity the mission president, while quoting wikipedia didn’t go a few steps further, eh) shows that the priesthood restoration completely lacks facts and dates.

Beat on that chest, Boyd K.  Beat on it good.  It’s all you got.

Posted in GA Bullsh*t | 1 Comment

L. Tom Perry, the one trick pony

Posted on April 29, 2013 by Mithryn

Recently L. Tom Perry gave a speech to the students graduating BYU this last weekend.

Before I continue, I want you all to know, that I really kinda like L. Tom Perry.  He’s a grandpa-kinda figure, and seems less caught up in the political mayhem that the other GA’s love to create.

But his speech sounded kinda, well, familiar:

http://universe.byu.edu/beta/2013/04/25/elder-l-tom-perry-congratulates-counsels-byu-graduates/

Elder Perry said his parents had a tradition, when their children reached their first birthday, of sitting them in the corner of the room and setting four items in front of them: a toy, a Bible, a bank and a bottle. Then they would see which item the child The traditionAccording to Elder Perry, a tradition was when his children turned age one. They would set four items out in front of the child- a toy, a bible, a bank, and a baby bottle. Elder Perry and his wife would then have their child crawl and chose which item the child reached for.

This sounded dreadfully familiar, and so I thought to do a few second search on LDS.org.

Here is the same talk subject in 2010 to UVU students graduating

We also had family traditions. The experiences gained from these family traditions taught us basic principles. One fun tradition we practiced in our family had a lasting impression on us. When the children in the family reached the age of one, they were placed at one end of a room and the family at the other end. Where the family was gathered, four objects were placed on the floor: a baby’s milk bottle, a toy, a small savings bank, and the scriptures. The child was then encouraged to crawl to the objects and select one of them.

I selected the bank and turned out to be a financial executive. My brother Ted selected the scriptures, was a great lover of books all his life, and became a lawyer. My brother Bob was the well-rounded member of the family. He crawled up and sat on the scriptures, picked up the bank and placed it right at his feet, and put the bottle in his mouth with one hand and held the toy in the other hand. He became an accountant. He lived a well-balanced life.

And again, in 1991 General Conference

My parents established a family tradition in our home which was fun for me in my early years and has become even more meaningful as I reflect back on it as the years have passed. On the first birthday of each child the family would gather in the living room. In the center of the living room floor, our parents would place articles for the one-year-old child to select. The selection to be made might indicate an interest the child would pursue in life. The articles were the Bible, a child’s bottle filled with milk, a toy, and a savings bank, filled with coins. The child was placed on one side of the room and the family on the other side. Family members would encourage the child to crawl toward the objects and make a selection. This was all in fun, of course.

I was told that I selected the bank and went into finance as my profession. I watched my brother Ted select the scriptures, and he pursued law as his chosen profession. Over the years he has relied on the scriptures as a basis for his judgments. My youngest brother, Bob, was the well-rounded member of the family. He crawled over, sat down on the Bible, put the bottle of milk in his mouth, and then held the toy in one hand and the bank in the other.

But I didn’t hear it at any of these events, but when L. Tom Perry spoke at our stake conference.  He can take this amusing anecdote  and use it for self reliance, or the subject of life choices.  He can take this story, and turn it to any gospel principle.

The fascinating bits are as follows

  • He doesn’t select the bible.  (The book is a bible in some cases, and just a book in others) and yet became an apostle.  One might think this would count as undermining the parent’s ability to prognosticate the future, but no; for some reason his brother is the “book” still
  • He still considers himself a finance guy primarily.  That the bank was his, still primarily defines him, and he accepts that with no issue.  Every telling of the story, his primary job is an insurance salesman.
  • His youngest brother is “well-rounded”.  In the stake conference re-telling I attended, he mentioned they forgot to give the test to the youngest brother until he was significantly older.  Hence why that baby could fetch all the items at once
  • L. Tom Perry only has brothers.  I can’t help but wonder if the same ritual would have been done for sisters, and if they chose the bank, they would have been encouraged to pursue careers.  Or if the items would have been switched.

Another interesting tid bit is that Tom Perry served in World War II.  He served as a marine that landed on Saipan, and remained there for about a year (After Tomas Monson’s friend got himself killed for misbehavior on the ship- see previous post, Tom Perry was sent in on the ground). He was also sent into Japan to help rebuild and occupy the ground.

He worked in retail for years.

He also threw out the first pitch at a Red Sox game on May 8, 2004.

He does mention his military experience in one ensign article, and it is mentioned in his biography.  But he really doesn’t identify with that so much as being an insurance salesman.

Again, nothing earth-shattering.  No monumental lies that rock people to their core, but an interesting look into the psyche of an individual who has run one of the largest corporation-churches in the world since 1974.

Posted in GA Bullsh*t | 1 Comment

King of all GA bullsh*t: Paul H. Dunn

Posted on April 26, 2013 by Mithryn

For the younger readers, I give the wiki and a quick summary. Paul H. Dunn was a major General Authority in the 70s and early 80s who was caught lying through his teeth so often that he was removed as a leader. His lies included playing baseball where he didn’t, serving in Vietnam when he didn’t, and a host of other things.

Please note that, although known as a devout liar that misled saints with tales of miracles and personal achievement, his stories can still be found in manuals being taught to children, and he is listed as an author in the Old Testament Student Manual and as a study source in the instructor’s manuals.

Of course, we’d expect talks of his to still be listed on the LDS.org site, but, to my surprise, many of his talks and lessons were reiterated after he admitted that he had embellished his stories in 1991. Sharing Time in 1990, while Paul H. Dunn was under investigation, even included his stories distributed in both the U.S. and foreign mailings of the Friend.

Interestingly, his obituary is rather short, not listing his war service, his baseball experience, or any other of his tall tales. Also noteworthy, he was never excommunicated for lying to the body of the church, just given Emeritus status on October 1, 1989.

In the late 1980s, a number of investigators, including Arizona Republic reporter Lynn Packer and church critics Jerald and Sandra Tanner, accused Dunn of fabricating or embellishing many of these events.

Jerald and Sandra Tanner published this number once he confessed, illustrating the long history of fabricating stories to make people feel good. I think it is relevant that Mr. Dunn was committing fraud as the head of a company long before anything came to light publicly:

Paul H. Dunn… whose church salary is $40,000 a year, was a director of Afco Enterprises, a real-estate venture until 1978. Afco collapsed four years later; and its owner, Grant C. Affleck, was recently indicted for mail fraud, securities fraud and bankruptcy fraud. Despite Mr. Dunn’s 1978 resignation, records in the U. S. District Court civil suit here show that he continued to have ties with Afco until it entered bankruptcy proceedings in 1982…. and gave advice to directors after he resigned…. A few days before Afco entered bankruptcy proceedings, Mr. Dunn wrote a disgruntled Afco investor a letter calling Mr. Affleck, a fellow Mormon, ‘fair and Christ like.’ U. S. Attorney Brent Ward… says that about 650 investors lost over $20 million through Afco investments.’

Lynn Packer is an interesting fellow. He is the nephew of Boyd K. Packer, and was a professor at BYU at the time.

Researcher Lynn Packer did not get off so easily. “At the same time [that they placed Dunn on emeritus status], however, the university [BYU] terminated Packer’s teaching contract, in part because he wanted to publish a story about his findings. Gordon Whiting, then chairman of the BYU communications department, had warned Packer in a memo that `publication of the Paul Dunn article will damage the church, will damage the university, will damage the department and will damage you.’”

When Packer, himself a Mormon, decided to release his four years of research to The Arizona Republic in spite of the threats, his contract was terminated and he lost his job. Whiting explained that Packer violated, “church and university policies that prohibit public criticism if church leaders.  Mormon leader Dunn was not reprimanded for altering the facts, but Packer was fired simply for showing that these stories were not true.

Lynn Packer also investigated another con man of infamy, one “Mark Hofmann.”  He had been tasked at KSL, as he was also employed there, to look into Mark Hofmann’s dealings with Gordon B. Hinckley. He was fired for wanting to publish that story. Packer also published work for the Utah City Weekly newspaper in 2007, highlighting graft and issues in the Olympics, as well as other issues.

His Sunstone article detailing his research is available here.

Among Dunn’s claims that came to be questioned were:

  • that Dunn had played major league baseball with the St. Louis Cardinals;[1]
  • that Dunn was one of only six in his 1,000-man combat group who survived World War II, and was the only one of the six survivors who wasn’t wounded;[2]
  • that Dunn was the sole survivor among 11 infantrymen in a 100-yard race against death, during which one burst of machine-gun fire ripped his right boot off, another tore off his ammunition and canteen belt and yet another split his helmet in half—all without wounding him;[3]
  • that Dunn’s best friend died in his arms from serious injuries sustained in a battle on Okinawa.[4]

When confronted with evidence that several of his stories were either completely falsified or substantially embellished, Dunn admitted that the stories were not completely true, yet continued to defend his use of the stories:

I haven’t purposely tried to embellish or rewrite history. I’ve tried to illustrate points that would create interest. [I was] simply putting history in little finer packages.

The response to the allegations against Mr. Dunn were, perhaps predictable. The Deseret News tried to cast reason to doubt the allegations, and BYU students informed in the Daily Universe became upset anyone would say such truths about a man who was so loved, including one man punching the author (The Daily Universe, Feb. 21, 1991)!

On October 26, the following letter was published in the Church News, a supplement section of Deseret Morning News (a newspaper owned by the LDS Church):

October 23, 1991
I have been accused of various activities unbecoming a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
I confess that I have not always been accurate in my public talks and writings. Furthermore, I have indulged in other activities inconsistent with the high and sacred office which I have held.
For all of these I feel a deep sense of remorse, and ask forgiveness of any whom I may have offended.
My brethren of the General Authorities, over a long period of time, have conducted in-depth investigations of the charges made against me. They have weighed the evidence. They have censured me and placed a heavy penalty upon me.
I accept their censure and the imposed penalty, and pledge to conduct my life in such a way as to merit their confidence and full fellowship.
In making these acknowledgements, I plead for the understanding of my brethren and sisters throughout the Church and give assurance of my determination so to live as to bring added respect to the cause I deeply love, and honor to the Lord who is my Redeemer.
Sincerely, Paul H. Dunn[5]

The exact identity of the “heavy penalty” that was imposed upon Dunn is unclear. It is clear that Dunn was not excommunicated from the church, though it is not known whether or not he was placed under some other form of church discipline, such as disfellowshipment or probation.

So what should have happened to Mr. Dunn? In a Sunstone article, there is final note about an LDS chaplain who forged heroic stories about serving in Vietnam. The Chaplain was court-martialed and faced up to 20 years in prison. He was fined $10,000 and dismissed, however.

The fascinating thing is not just that the church tried to cover up the scandal, not that they tried to bribe their way out of it, or that they still use a man who blatantly lied in their teaching material up until long after it was obvious the man was a fraud. It’s that so many of the current GAs are engaged in similar behavior without anyone noticing.

Posted in GA Bullsh*t | Leave a comment

Thomas Monson’s Friend, Arthur Patton

Posted on April 26, 2013 by Mithryn

In 1969, Thomas S. Monson told a story of a friend named “Arthur Patton” and his sad widowed mother.

The story is reproduced in full here.

Thomas gives some very detailed info about Arthur in this talk.

  • He had blond, curly hair.
  • A smile as big as all outdoors.
  • Arthur stood taller than any boy in the class.
  •  Enlisted in the Navy at the tender age of 15.
  • He wrote lots of letters to his mother.
  • Mrs. Patton, (his mother) was a cleaning woman for a downtown office.
  • Arthur was killed in the Battle of the Coral Sea, the sinking of the Lexington did not occur then, but the ship did participate and was crippled. It was scuttled (intentionally sunk) on May 8th.

This message was reprinted in the New Era, in 1991.

In 2007, now as Prophet of the LDS Church, the tale was told again:

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2007/10/mrs-patton-the-story-continues?lang=eng

Details that changed:

  • Arthur was transferred from the USS Dorsey, a destroyer, to the USS White Plains, an aircraft carrier.
  • While at Saipan in the South Pacific, the ship was attacked. Arthur was one of those on board who was lost at sea.

The USS White Plains was not sunk. However, for the remainder of the war, she carried out the relatively tame assignment of ferrying replacement aircraft from their factories in the United States to bases in the western Pacific.

A quicker review of all Navy casualties from Utah in WWII shows that no one by the name “Arthur Patten” or “Arthur Patton” died on either of these ships, or any other ship in WWII.

According to the ship’s own “Report of Changes of U.S.S. White Plains (CVE 66) for the month ending 19th day of July 1944,” Patton was declared as “missing” on 4 July 1944, not in March 1944. Moreover, that “missing” designation was ascribed in Patton’s case to the “result of own misconduct.” In other words, Patton was not classified by his ship’s crew log as having been killed during, or as a result of, battle action.

Also reported “Missing as result of own misconduct” on the same day as Patton was a fellow shipmate, Blake Lewis Pauley.

the U.S.S. White Plains left the combat zone off Saipan on 2 July 1944–meaning that (contrary to Monson’s story) Patton was not killed in combat within that zone or time period because his ship was, in fact, steaming to and/or arriving at an atoll outside the combat zone before Patton was declared “missing as result of own misconduct”

a WW II combined task unit casualty list (one that included the U.S.S. White Plains) reveals (contrary to Monson’s claim) no–repeat, no–”Arthur Patton” listed as killed or missing in action. Accompanying that list is the note that “KIA/MIAs are verified via the MEN LOST IN ACTION FROM THE CVE/DD/DE’s OF TAFFY III monument at Fort Rosecrans National Cemetery, San Diego, CA”

(“Crew Lists of Task Unit 77.4.3: U.S.S. White Plains {CVE 66) and Composite Squadron VC-4,” at:http://www.bosamar.com/crewlist/cve66crewlist.html, original emphasis).

Original leg work on this section of research was found here.

Please note that the accounts do not indicate that the U.S.S. White Plains suffered significant casualties or damage as a result of the Saipan operations.

It appears that Patton was not killed in battle at all:

Moreover, Patton vanished completely from U.S. military in-service and out-of-service records after July 1944. His mother, according to Monson, eventually informed Monson by letter (after Monson had falsely declared in his 1969 sermon that Patton died in 1942 in the wrong sea and on the wrong boat) that her son was “killed” on 5 July 1944. Monson, however, has not publicly claim that Patton’s mother informed him of how Patton was “killed.” — ibid

The California Department of Health Services, Office of Health Information and Research Vital Statistics Section, declares that Patton’s friend died on the death date given to Monson by his mother:

Last Name: PAULEY
First Name: BLAKE
Middle: LEWIS
Birth Date: 02/16/1927
Mother Maiden: CRANE
Father Last: PAULEY
Sex: M
Birth Place: CALIFORNIA
Death Place: OTHER COUNTRIES
Residence Death Date: 07/05/1944
Age: 17 yrs

Monson then reveals that the mother had written him a letter:

During the first week of May 1969, to my astonishment and joy, I received a letter postmarked Pomona, California, and dated April 29, 1969. It was from Mrs. Terese Patton. I share with you a part of that letter:

“Dear Tommy,

“I hope you don’t mind my calling you Tommy, as I always think of you that way. I don’t know how to thank you for the comforting talk you gave.

“Arthur was 15 years old when he enlisted in the navy. He was killed one month before his 19th birthday on July 5, 1944.

“It was wonderful of you to think of us. I don’t know how to thank you for your comforting words, both when Arthur died and again in your talk. I have had many questions over the years, and you have answered them. I am now at peace concerning Arthur. . . . God bless and keep you always.

“Love,

“Terese Patton”

It seems odd that Monson wouldn’t mention the letter for 38 years after receiving the letter. Despite that, a postscript was added to the 1969 talk, but with no dates or locations corrected.

Another point to consider:

As the years lengthen, Monson’s knowledge of Patton’s military circumstances curiously appears to be expanding–meaning, that Mrs. Patton wasn’t helping him accumulate facts but someone else was. (Indeed, in his 2007 sermon, Monson declares, in essence, that he doesn’t know where Mrs. Patton is and dramatically speaks to her in abstentia). –ibid

Steve Benson provides the following details:

Name: Terese Patton
DOB: 11/28/1894
Place of Issuance [of SS #]: UTAH
DOD: June 1980
Last Residence: Visalia, California
_____

More information from the state of California Death Index:

Name: Terese Patton
Last Residence: 93277 Visalia, Tulare, California, United States of America
Born: 28 Nov 1894
Last Benefit: 93277 Visalia, Tulare, California, United States of America
Died: Jun 1980
State (Year) SSN issued: Utah (Before 1951)
_____

Arthur Patton’s mother’s maiden name was Teresa Loikits.

His father’s name was Louis Albert Lee, or just “Lee” Patton.

The Pattons tied to Arthur came from their Chicago line. This particular Chicago family tree indicates that Terese Patton died in Ponoma, CA (which is where Monson says he received a postmarked letter from her).

Interesting factoid: Arthur’s father died on 8 December 1941, one day after Pearl Harbor and two days before Arthur enlisted in the Navy in Salt Lake City.

Arthur Patton’s father was still in Chicago at the time of Arthur’s father’s death.

Another poster points out:

No mention by Tom of Arthur joining up just two days after Arthur’s dad dies–who had died just one day after Pearl Harbor was attacked.

Makes one wonder just how close Tom and Arthur really were.

TL;DR: Although it is possible that Thomas Monson didn’t remember the details of Arthur’s service when he gave his original talk, and that the mother was miraculously invited to watch the conference talk, she did not provide the details in the letter that Monson later corrected himself.

It is far more likely that he told the story, was caught in a lie, and had church researchers look up details so that future tellings would not be as embarrassing. Perhaps someone on the correlation committee caught it as he planned to simply re-tell the same 1969 story.

Posted in GA Bullsh*t | 4 Comments