Chapter 1: O Say What is [Useful] Truth?

Chapter 1
O Say What is [Useful] Truth?

They promised us truth Now they're giving us lies

From time to time in the LDS Church is sung the hymn “O Say What is Truth” . According to that hymn, the truth is “the fairest gem”, “the brightest prize”, and that the search for it “Tis an aim for the noblest desire”. It seems to me that such statements are as self evident as any statement ever was or could be. Truth is present wherever real freedom, liberty, sovereignty, dignity, honor, life, and happiness abound, to list just a few. John Jaques, the author, must have understood this, as the song contrasts the lesser known but invaluable and immutable truth, against the less valuable but omnipresent riches of the world. The latter of which are understood by everybody, but the former -- not so much -- especially among those that think they have more than the average. 

I have spent my entire life pursuing truth. I began at an early age, and have never stopped seeking the truth since, and never will. Through the years, as I studied the modern day correlated LDS gospel, I detected many anomalies in what was taught in the scriptures, Church magazines, lessons, conference talks, and other official statements from the Church. For example, I have wondered why the retraction on plural marriage was not a section in the Doctrine and Covenants instead of just a “Declaration”. I wondered more recently why it was only signed by one man, rather than the First Presidency. I noticed changes in the Book of Mormon when there was a transition to the correlated scriptures in the 1980’s. As a boy, I remember walking through the BYU bookstore, and while everyone else was snatching up the new scriptures, I did not. I stayed with my soft cover golden jacketed book. I did however purchase an index (the same as what was published in the new scriptures), though it was not until years later that it was pointed out to me by Hugh Nibley that “money” was not a topic in that index. I was intrigued at how the pre-eminent defender of the faith Hugh Nibley expressed his opinion that this could not have happened by accident, since there are numerous references to money in the scriptures. I went to the shelf to confirm what Nibley was saying, and was able to verify it completely. 

I have wondered for years why the LDS doctrine is to baptize children at the age of eight, when the Book of Mormon itself prohibits baptizing children . I wondered out loud some time ago with my wife and older kids of the dichotomy of teaching the doctrine that children under eight years old are not accountable to God and cannot sin, but then suddenly baptizing them “for the remission of sins” the moment they turn eight, with no time to accumulate any sins at all, certainly none of any gravity or effect. 

Like all faithful Mormons, I was a teetotaller. I lived in strict compliance with the prohibitions of the Word of Wisdom and abstained from alcohol, tobacco, tea, and coffee. I also lived in loose compliance with it’s permissions, but years ago wondered why it is now a mandatory “law” while the current unaltered revelation still clearly states it is to go forth “not by commandment or constraint”6 . I later wondered if that hardening was really the inspiration of God, or if it simply remained as an artifact of the prohibition movement which was happening in the United States at the time, with Mormon President Heber J. Grant one of it’s leading advocates. I also wondered even more recently how modern day interpretation of the Word of Wisdom conveniently ignores the permission it gives to consume “mild drinks”8 , which is obviously a reference to beer. Still later, my consternation grew as I learned that Joseph Smith sent for a bottle of wine the night before he was killed . 

“Sometime after dinner we [John Taylor and other prisoners at Carthage Jail] sent for some wine. It has been reported by some that this was taken as a sacrament. It was no such thing; our spirits were generally dull and heavy, and it was sent for to revive us.... I believe we all drank of the wine, and gave some to one or two of the prison guards.” 

My chagrin grew further still when I discovered that Joseph not only drank wine that night, but was known to drink wine, beer, tea, and smoke cigars. But my surprise would have been tempered only a little if I had also been taught that Joseph had also operated a tavern at Far West Missouri for which he was censured by the High Council in June 1838! 

All this flew in the face of the colorfully packaged, processed food style, correlated diet on which I was raised, which consisted of nothing but an incessant and uninterrupted litany in Church lessons, seminary, and general conference talks of how Joseph refused alcohol when his leg was operated on as a child. I wondered why the young boy who refused a literal prescription of alcohol at the hands of a doctor would later drink casually while under no such medical attention at all. And in the midst of all this, Joseph himself led a resolution that: 

“No official member in this Church is worthy to hold an office after having the word of wisdom properly taught him; and he, the official member, neglecting to comply with and obey it.”

I now find it strange to relate that the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve did not discontinue the use of wine in their weekly sacrament meetings until 1906. 

But it wasn’t just the Word of Wisdom. There were other abnormalities and incongruous episodes, including but not limited to baptism, polygamy, the Kinderhook plates, the Greek psalter incident, the order from Joseph to remove the garment and destroy it, Joseph shooting three men at Carthage and the Masonic symbol of distress Joseph gave as he was killed, the sale of the Book of Mormon copyright issue, succession in the Church, changes in core doctrine regarding the nature of God, adding doctrine to what was already called the fullness of Christ’s gospel, modifying revelations, modifying and memory holing conference talks such as the 1984 Elder Poelman fiasco, multiple changes to tithing, changes to the first vision, changes to the name of the Church after already being told what it was “by revelation”, apostles vs. Apostles, billion dollar malls, alterations to the Book of Mormon, the Anthon transcript, Heartsell, alterations to the symbols on the garment, evolution of the reason for the garment, modifications to the endowment, blacks and the priesthood, Joseph burning section 132 and fearing his soul was lost, the Book of Abraham, and so on. 

I was taught nothing of this in my four years of seminary, my study of institute manuals, hundreds of Church lessons in primary, Sunday school, institute, priesthood lessons, or in the thousands of hours I spent reading and studying the scriptures over and over in what amounts to about 15,000 pages of scripture study. It now appears that the reason I was never taught such things was because the correlation department of the Church, under the direction of the leadership, had decided that not all truth is “useful”. Apostle Boyd Packer advocated that history which is true should not be shared if it does not promote faith. That seems all well and good as long as the Church remains in absolute control of whatever interpretation of history the Saints receive. In the past, some Church history that was deemed to not be faith promoting was easily hidden in plain sight simply by labeling it apostate, and in the absence of any first hand experience in and of themselves, many incongruities and problems of the Church rarely cross their minds. This approach worked more or less for many years until the arrival of something called the Internet, and in particular, “Google”. With Google, there are not many secrets anymore. With Wikipedia and the trust it carries, the situation is complicated as topics can be posted, edited, and referenced outside of the control of whomever or whatever the topic is about. This means the control that the LDS Church (and everyone else for that matter) has enjoyed forever, is slipping away. 

The problem with Packer’s view of how history should be told is that when people discover that the real history of the Church is not the history they have been taught, it kills faith in the most cruel manner. It kills faith both in early Church leaders and also credibility in the current leadership who at a minimum look guilty as they perpetuate what appear to be half truths, fabrications, and obfuscation of history. Packer explains that milk should be given before meat, where he considers partial truth, obfuscated history and outright lies to be the milk, with the actual truth to be the meat. Packer is joined in his views by LDS Apostle Dallin Oaks, who said: 

“My duty as a member of the Council of the Twelve is to protect what is most unique about the LDS Church, namely the authority of priesthood, testimony regarding the restoration of the gospel, and the divine mission of the Savior. Everything may be sacrificed in order to maintain the integrity of those essential facts. Thus, if Mormon Enigma reveals information that is detrimental to the reputation of Joseph Smith, then it is necessary to try to limit its influence and that of its authors.” 

It is clear Oaks has his allegiance, and his method is a perfect example of what I call chaining. Chaining is the presentation of often accepted or easily accepted truths together with less accepted or dubious things as if they were one and the same. Every Christian accepts the divine mission of the Saviour, but how many accept the LDS restoration of the gospel or the authority of the priesthood in the same way? The problem with chaining is not only can it bind the truth with lies in an all or nothing scenario, but it often shackles the believers who believe whatever truth is in the statement to the person or institution that made the statement, rather than to the content itself. Later, when the statement comes into question, several things can happen. One possibility is if the person cannot divorce the lies from the truth, the whole concatenation of the person’s belief system may eventually go overboard in a wholesale sinking of their beliefs not just in what teaching was called into question, but everything that was chained to it. Tragically, this is often why when Mormons leave their Church, they never go to any other church and often stop believing in God altogether. Speaking from experience, I can say the good feelings previously associated with the discarded beliefs often remain, creating a dissonance between the persons mind and heart as they continue to have positive feelings toward their own life experience and good nature, while their brain tells them it is a lie. For these people, complete dissociation from the institution can be nearly impossible, and wherever it is attempted, it is always painful. 

This is how it was for me. At any rate, chaining is a cruel and dangerous method of mind control manipulation, something that will be touched on later in this book. 

President Gordon Hinckley commented similarly to Oaks: 

“The Church will not dictate to any man, but it will counsel, it will persuade, it will urge, and it will expect loyalty from those who profess membership therein .. of uncompromising loyalty to the Church”

Jeffrey Holland continued with some chaining of his own: 

“But no child in this Church should be left with uncertainty about his or her parents’ devotion to the Lord Jesus Christ, the Restoration of His Church, and the reality of living prophets and apostles who, now as in earlier days, lead that Church according to ‘the will of the Lord, . . . the mind of the Lord, . . . the word of the Lord, . . . and the power of God unto salvation.’ In such basic matters of faith, prophets do not apologize for requesting unity, indeed conformity” 

Joseph Wirthlin added: 

“Our intellect can feed our spirit and our spirit can feed our intellect, but if we allow our intellect to take precedence over our spirit, we stumble, find fault, and may even lose our testimonies”

These enlightening statements are not the only ones like them, as there are many others. 

For the “one true Church”, on the throne in place of the King of Truth, the leaders have appointed the conjoined twin stewards called Unity and Loyalty, and it seems the twins don’t want to give up that seat so easily. The leadership preach the themes of unity and loyalty constantly. But unity of what? And loyalty to what cause? Is it loyalty to the Church, or to Jesus Christ? I expect that the leaders will say that loyalty to the Church is loyalty to God and that to be loyal to the Church is without a doubt to be loyal to God and Jesus Christ. But when I consider the history, I have to ask myself: when has it ever been appropriate to be loyal to the men in this way -- to the arm of flesh obviously evident in the Church? How much of history and how many scriptures warn us not to trust in the arm of flesh? I dare say so many it does not deserve a citation. 

Through the centuries one unfortunate but true pattern has been repeated over and over: that men cannot be trusted -- ever. Almost every time men have been entrusted with power, they have abused that power by compromising the truth and supplanting it with a mandate of loyalty to themselves or the institution they created. It is the exchange of the rule of law through truth for the rule of men by unity and loyalty. Once the truth is compromised and unity and loyalty are enthroned, the leading men have fear of nothing except one single thing: losing their power. Even their fear of God is removed, and they will do anything and absolutely everything to preserve their power including manipulating the truth and fabricating lies, and all this is done ironically, in the name of God. 

As Dallin Oaks said: “Everything may be sacrificed in order to maintain the integrity of those essential facts”. That revealing statement is more of a confession as to how he has decided that anything -- ANYTHING, may be sacrificed to maintain the integrity of those essential facts. But even in saying that I have to ask: what facts? In his own words, the facts are “the authority of priesthood, testimony regarding the restoration of the gospel, and the divine mission of the Savior”. In this example of chaining, the Christian “fact” of the divine mission of the Saviour is mixed in a sentence with two other less certain elements: the authority of the priesthood, and the testimony of the restoration of the gospel. I am not disputing the divine life of Jesus Christ, nor even the authority of the priesthood of the LDS Church to govern themselves, since priesthood is just a synonym for authority. But can we be sure that the other two statements are facts? Is a testimony a fact, or a statement of belief? Is even the restoration of the priesthood” a fact? Do we even have a certain date recorded for such an important event -- certainly more important than even the restoration of the Aaronic priesthood? We do not. We instead rely on a passing mention of this priesthood” ordination by Peter, James, and John in Doctrine and Covenants 27:12, a revelation received in August 1830 at Harmony Pennsylvania, or so we are told. But here is the catch: the original revelation, which appeared in the Book of Commandments chapter 28, contains no such reference to Peter, James, or John. The truth is that in 1835, thirteen new verses were added to this “revelation” after the fact, yet the revelation still states it was received as is by Joseph Smith in August 1830. How can this be? 

We are told that the keystone of the LDS religion is the Book of Mormon. But why then so many modifications to it? Can a keystone be removed, altered, then set back in place without any repercussions to the structure that depended on it’s existence and careful placement? 

Are the early revelations not part of the restoration? If so, then why modify them and have the modified versions masquerade as the originals when they are not? What was so lacking in the original version that they needed subsequent modification? If the leadership do not see fit to notate the documents so the reader knows they have been modified, then clearly they are demonstrating they understand that if they did so, many people would not trust them or believe them anymore. How ironic is it that when we discover these things have been modified and hence fail to believe, they ask us why we no longer believe! Yet even if they are not the ones that created these problems, are they not just as guilty for continuing to knowingly perpetuate them? 

The question I ask now is how is the power of the leadership maintained? The answer is that it easily does so through the loyalty of the members of the Church, and the mechanism by which this is accomplished is at least in part, with the four course meal of “useful truth”. The leadership literally furnish the membership with all the aromas, flavors, textures, and colors of useful truth in place of the raw, bland, unsalted and boring, hard to digest truth. This migration from just teaching the simple gospel truth to teaching loyalty to Church creeds strangles the original gospel message. Following that is a concerted effort to mitigate access to any materials that would call into question the creeds that have replaced the original gospel in all it’s simplicity. The lengths to which the leadership will go are clear when we read First Presidency letters such as the following, expressing alarm that members might be forwarding “unofficial” notes made of the Church’s own speakers: 

“From time to time statements are circulated among members which are inaccurately attributed to the leaders of the Church. Many such statements distort current Church teachings and are often based on rumors and innuendos. They are never transmitted officially, but by word of mouth, e-mail, or other informal means. We encourage members of the Church to never teach or pass on such statements without verifying that they are from approved Church sources, such as official statements, communications, and publications. Any notes made when General Authorities, Area Authority Seventies, or other general Church officers speak at regional and stake conferences or other meetings should not be distributed without the consent of the speaker. Personal notes are for individual use only. True spiritual growth is based on studying the scriptures, the teachings of the Brethren, and Church publications.”

The key here is the last sentence regarding what they call “true spiritual growth”. I emphatically disagree. True spiritual growth comes not from fawning over the modified scriptures, Church creeds or revelations, but in doing good and in bringing forth good fruit. “He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise.” That is true religion, and it is available to breathing people everywhere. Tax collectors were admonished to “Exact no more than that which is appointed you” while the soldiers were told “Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.” The modern day equivalent to these injunctions would be simply “if you have two houses, give to him who has none, beware of your business dealings, stop fighting wars of aggression, and no, water boarding is definitely not allowed”. Oh, and may I add, neither is owning five billion dollar malls, the nations largest ranches, newspapers, TV stations, and condominium development projects for nobody but the rich. 

During the last 100 years or so, instead of new revelations (and probably because of a lack of them), the old revelations were recycled through a nameless committee for re-evaluation, re-writing, and reintegration into the canon as if nothing had happened. Usually the latest version of the gospel is not amplified, augmented and liberating, but attenuated, heavily redacted, and incrementally more restrictive. This gospel is no longer “ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free”, but more aptly a creed, “ye shall know the [useful] truth, and the [useful] truth shall make you ....free?” Is that at all possible? If the Church is true as it says it is, then this discussion is irrelevant. But is the Church acting like it is? What if you or I operated like that? Could we even think of retaining our credibility or even attempt to go to a temple recommend interview knowing the last question “are you honest in all your dealings with your fellow man” will be staring you in the face? Can the leadership of the Church answer that question themselves without blushing just a little bit? 

Furthermore, what happens to our sacred honor when our loyalty is pledged to an organization that thinks it is okay to alter conference talks and masquerade it’s replacement as the original? What happens to our integrity when we give our uncompromising loyalty to a Church that claims the doctrine it currently teaches is the same as that which was taught at the inception when it demonstrably is not? What about a Church that claims it is the one true church while insisting that only useful truth is to be taught? 

Gordon Hinckley insisted that “the Church expects loyalty from those who profess membership”. I ask: loyalty to what? To the Church? To altered conference talks? To correlated and subjugated history? When these things are changed, shall we maintain loyalty to that or shall we object? What good is loyalty that needs continual adjustment to be sure it is still pointed at it’s ever moving target? Unlike a real and firm anchor buried in the seabed, such a loyalty is no different than a sea anchor -- doing nothing but keeping the vessel from capsizing in the waves. 

As we have seen, Hinckley demanded “uncompromising loyalty to the Church”. I ask: what is the Church? If it is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and we are the Latter-day Saints, shall we not be loyal to ourselves as well as Christ? Is this LDS Church permanently and immutably synonymous with the gospel? Is it eternally in harmony with Jesus Christ? Is there any precedent in history of “the True Church” failing to fulfill it’s mandate and is there any justification to cut off one’s loyalty when the Church begins to overstep it’s bounds? Have the leaders of the LDS Church forgotten about men such as Calvin and Martin Luther... and Joseph Smith, and the claims he bore? Do we think that it cannot happen again? Have we forgotten the Israelites? What about the LDS’s own scriptures account of the corrupt Priests of Noah in the Book of Mormon? Jeffrey Holland stated that: “To lead a child — or anyone else — even inadvertently, away from faithfulness, away from loyalty and bedrock belief simply because we want to be clever or independent is license no parent nor any other person has ever been given. In matters of religion a sceptical mind is not a higher manifestation of virtue than is a believing heart, and analytical deconstruction in the field of, say, literary fiction can be just plain old fashioned destruction when transferred to families yearning for faith at home. And such a deviation from the true course can be deceptively slow and subtle in its impact. As one observer said, “[If you raise the temperature of my] bath water . . . only 1 degree every 10 minutes, how [will I] know when to scream?” To this statement I would ask Elder Holland how questioning altered revelations which are not annotated as such is somehow not faithfulness? I ask, just what are these bedrock beliefs he is speaking of? Is the bedrock to which he refers the new temple ordinances, minus the oath of vengeance and the suicidal penalties? Does Elder Holland really believe that the truth seeker feels clever when he discovers that Joseph Smith married other men’s wives, daughters, and their mothers at the same time, or that there are nearly 4000 changes to the Book of Mormon? Is it fair to complain about the scepticism of the former true believer because he stumbled upon multiple accounts of the First Vision, so much so that even the name of the event is called into question? And what is this “literary fiction” of which he speaks? Is not the LDS official narrative of it’s own history its own “literary fiction”? Are there really no elements of this “literary fiction” in the History of the Church, the Church’s own volume of “history”, which contains edits attributed to Joseph Smith in his own name -- after he died? It may be that such edits are permissible in order to assemble a more readable and cohesive history than what would be possible any other way, from the source material that was available to them. But are redaction’s from that volume justified in the same manner? The “History of the Church” passed through the hands of George Smith and Wilford Woodruff under the watchful eye of Brigham Young.30 This was later edited by B.H. Roberts and published starting in 190231. Both versions have had their day. The first compilation of history retained the testimony of the three men stating “we are satisfied that a history more correct in its details than this, was never published”. But if so, then what would be the purpose of the later edit by B.H. Roberts? How can you make the most accurate historical book ever published more accurate? For that matter, how can you make the “most correct book” (the Book of Mormon) more correct by implementing nearly 4000 changes? 

I agree that the fictional work to which Jeffrey Holland refers really is nothing other than good old fashioned destruction, but I suggest that if he really is concerned about preserving faith at home, he should start with his own house not by covering, but dis-covering the truth. If the Church does not do so, then truly as he says, the bathwater is raised one degree every time the faithful truth seeker finds out one problem with the Church after another until the member calls out in agony of mind and heart “how will I know when to scream?” And having been scalded once, twice, three times and more, like a burnt child, can we really expect that member to harbor no suspicion or fear of the heat or the authority who wields it? 

Any effort to whitewash the important historical data, no matter how good the intentions of the individual or organization, will result in an erosion of what Elder Holland calls “bedrock beliefs” because they are really something other than bedrock after all. When one moors their faith to the immovable facts of the past so far as they are taught, and then those supposedly immovable “bedrock” facts are found to be different or altogether absent from reality, the attached faith must in a corresponding fashion break, or at least be moved out of it’s place. This happens almost always with a resistive hope of some justification for it’s reinstatement or explanation for it’s absence, but this almost never occurs. Eventually, if no justification or explanation can be found, the resistance weakens and fails and the broken or displaced faith is usually lost or damaged forever. 

Elder Oaks said “Everything may be sacrificed in order to maintain the integrity of those essential facts”. Again I ask, of what facts does he speak? I am aware of the fact that sometime in late 1984 Elder Poelman and a camera crew walked secretly and entirely alone into the Salt Lake tabernacle to re-record his modified General Conference talk so the original could be erased from the archives of the Church, allowing the changeling to masquerade forever as the original. But alas, truth floats, and the original recording has surfaced on YouTube. The clever splicing, the careful angles shot in the retake, and the cough track the producer added complete the charade, but they do not make it history, any more than altering yesterday’s weather report to say the sun never shone makes it so. I cannot believe the audacity the Church has had to not only do this, but to arrogantly post the fake talk online where it appears side by side with the original, all the while claiming it is original is scandalous. You cannot make this stuff up. I have shared this story with several non members and the feeling of disgust that anyone would even attempt such a thing, let alone a church, has been unanimous. 

Boyd Packer stated: 

“A destroyer of faith — particularly one within the Church, and more particularly one who is employed specifically to build faith — places himself in great spiritual jeopardy. He is serving the wrong master, and unless he repents, he will not be among the faithful in the eternities” 

I concur with Boyd Packer, but it needs to be understood that those like him who propose that a man build his house of faith on a solid foundation while they know that in reality it is in fact sand are actually in the family of destroyers of faith themselves. He and others like him know that the winds must come and the water must rise to eventually erode the sand upon which the faith is built — possibly to it’s total destruction. He knows that there are issues with LDS Church history but he hides these things in what he calls “advanced history”. Rather, such history is not really advanced, but actually complete, while the protectionist and whitewashed history they offer is distorted and manipulated. The consequences of this policy of keeping people from the “advanced history” are often catastrophic when folks eventually find out what really happened. I have seen this destruction of faith happen in the lives of many good friends and other good people I know casually. 

In this way, I must say that Elder Packer has contributed to the dissolution of my faith and my family’s faith in what we thought was true because of him and others like him. If Packer really believes what he says, he actually poses more of a threat to himself than he thinks the seekers of truth pose to themselves. Truth needs no intercession or sacrifice on it’s behalf, nor can it be sacrificed. No matter how apparently lifeless and dead, it will resurrect itself and trump everything whether anyone likes it or not. Efforts to sacrifice “everything” including truth will fail because truth is immortal. It is like a zombie horror flick except the zombie of truth cannot be slain with a double tap to the head. Funny enough is that just as the Hollywood zombie wants brains, so does the zombiefied truth: it want’s you to use your God given grey matter to figure out what is really going on. ...