Previously: We Are Against Israel Because We Are JewsMy detractors are certainly going to have a field day with the title of this one. "Did you hear? Rock Waterman believes the earth is flat!"
Well no, that's not what I said. The truth is, I don't "believe" the earth is flat.
I don't believe the earth is round, either.
The fact is, I don't know what shape the earth is. How can I, when even the experts are not in agreement? Today, some have theorized that the earth is shaped not like globe, but as more of an oblate spheroid, like this:
Others surmise it might be sort of pear-shaped like this:
Or this, which they also consider pear-shaped, though to me this looks more like a potato made of Play-Doh:
So by now you may be asking, "what does all this have to do with Mormonism, anyway?"
Well, the reason I'm addressing the flat earth controvery is to illustrate a larger point which I'll get to soon enough, so stay with me. I'm going to demonstrate how discovering what is true and what is not true can be applied to some fundamental controversies currently taking place among Mormons and non-Mormons alike.
Believing Vs KnowingEpistemology is the philosophical discipline that asks the question, "How do we know what we know"? That's a fundamental question that almost no one asks when confronted with an idea that, on the surface, may seem utterly absurd. So when, for example, we hear someone tell us that the earth is flat, we tend to reject that premise out of hand because we know the earth is round. We never apply epistemology to ask ourselves how we know the earth is round. We just know it, that's all.
In a previous post I spoke briefly about Rene Descartes, generally recognized as the father of modern Western philosophy. Descartes devised a set of rules by which a person could determine the truth about just about anything. Rather than try to prove that the earth exists or the universe exists, or even that God exists, Descartes applied these rules to what has to be the most basic question of them all: "how do I even know that I exist?"
Applying his own Rules For The Direction of the Mind, Descarte proved his own existence, resulting in the famous conclusion, cogito,ergo sum. or "I think, therefore I am." In other words, he knows he exists because he has the ability to think about whether or not he exists. Applying these rules also led Descartes to conclude that God exists as well.
Rene Descartes is also famous for saying "doubt is the beginning of wisdom," which might strike the modern mind as being antithetical to his overall philosophy. But that's because these days people tend to think that doubting an idea that seems foreign to them means the same as dismissing that idea out of hand. Far be it. To doubt means to question. Question what? Well for one thing, you can do what Descartes did and question the very existence of God.
A suggestion like that might horrify some believers, but trust me, God doesn't mind being questioned. Like Descartes, God also knows that doubt is the beginning of Wisdom, because sincere doubt leads to sincere questioning. He wants you to inquire about Him, not to simply dismiss His reality as unlikely. One way to ask is embodied in Janice Kapp Perry's song for children, "Heavenly Father, Are You Really There?" No formality required; just lie in bed and ask. That method of inquiry works for us grownups just as well as it works for children.
So, to go back to our earlier analogy: When I was first confronted with the proposition that the earth might be flat, my first reaction was "well, that's ridiculous. It's not flat, it's round." That was my skepticism kicking in.
But since I like to think of myself as a sincere skeptic, it would be wrong to simply dismiss that proposition out of hand, especially given the number of otherwise intelligent people who were beginning to take this apparent wacky thesis seriously. (I soon learned that virtually everyone I came across who was promoting the flat earth theory started out intending to disprove it, and were now its most ardent missionaries.) I knew that if I was to approach this topic intelligently I would have to apply epistemology to the matter, and ask myself "how do I know the earth is round?" And the answer to that question is that I only know it's round is because way back in the recesses of my childhood somebody told me it was round. Ever since I was very young I've been taught repeatedly that the earth is round, and it has been proven to me in every classroom because the teacher pointed to California on the globe and showed me that is where we were, right there in Anaheim, which was so tiny we couldn't even see it. So all my life it was a "given" that we live on a globe that is constantly spinning through space. I had no reason to question it, but now I have to admit that the only reason I "know" the earth is round is because everybody says so.
Well, I've been a grownup for some time now, and I have come to learn that "everybody says so" is no way to determine whether a thing is true or false. So again, if you want to know what I believe about the shape of the earth, I'll say this: "belief" is not the word I'd use. In the epistemology canon, a belief is an attitude that a person holds regarding anything that they take to be true. Since I have no way of knowing whether the earth is flat or not, I can't say I believe it is.
I have a belief that God exists because I have experienced Him; in February of 2007 experienced the baptism of fire and felt His presence in me all the way through to my bones. That is my evidence that God exists, that He knows who I am, and that He loves me in a way that is impossible to describe. But like anything else, I can't transfer my personal experience to you. I can't use my experience to provide proof to you that God exists. Whether it's the shape of the earth or the existence of God, each of us has to make our own inquiries and come to our own conclusions.
As for whether the earth is flat, round, oblate, like a fruit, or like a lump of Play-Doh, I have no way of knowing. I would have to have the powers of Superman and be able to fly far above the earth in order to get a proper look at it; I can't think of anything other than an experience like that to persuade me one way or the other, because the photos of the horizon provided by NASA were taken with fish-eye lenses, which give the false appearance of curvature. So is the earth flat? I remain a skeptic until I can figure out how to see it for myself. So I guess I don't believe the earth is flat, but I'm open to the possibility that it might be because to be frank, it no longer makes sense to me that the earth is round. After watching Eric Dubay's 200 Proofs The Earth Is Not A Globe, I don't believe the earth is round, either. So for me the jury is out on this controversy. Happily, I don't think my eternal salvation dependends on my knowing the shape of whatever this thing is that I'm standing on. I realize that others feel this knowledge is somehow essential, but I see the whole controversy as an intriguing intellectual oddysey that I may engage in further some time down the road. Or I may just wait until I die and find out then. As the late great rabbit hole chaser Mae Brussell was fond of saying, this is all food for thought and grounds for further research.Did Abraham Lincoln Free The Slaves?
No, he did not. Now, I may not be able to offer an informed belief about the shape of the earth, but I can now give you, without any reservations whatsoever, my sincere belief that Abraham Lincoln was a cad. In fact, I agree with Chuck Baldwin, who puts Abraham lincoln first on his list of a America's Ten Worst Presidents.
History is another area where we can benefit from the epistemological query, "how do we know what we know?" Most of us have unquestioningly accepted what we learned in school, but by simply asking that simple question and then applying Descartes' rules and the Socratic line of reasoning, we can find out if what we think we know is the truth or not.
My awakening to the sinister character of Abraham Lincoln first came while reading Lerone Bennett's
corrective history, Forced Into Glory: Abraham Lincoln's White Dream. Far from actually freeing any slaves, Lincoln's fraudulent Emancipation Proclamation managed to keep slaves in bondage for at least two years after the proclamation was announced. Lincoln's proclamation allowed the Northern states to keep their slaves (yes, there were slaves in the North; in fact Union General Ulysees S. Grant kept two slaves with him on the battlefield to serve as his valet and cook). Most tellingly, that famous proclamation did not free any slaves in the South. Not a single one. That "white dream" referenced in the title? That refers to Lincoln's stated goal of one day shipping all the negroes back to Africa and killing off the Indians so the American continent would be inhabited only by white people. We don't know if Lincoln would have been able to see that plan fulfilled because he was killed before he ever had the chance to implement it. Lerone Bennett was a black historian and one-time editor of Ebony Magazine, which back in the day was what Life Magazine was to us white folks. You can watch him discuss how lincoln really felt about the slaves by clicking here.
Since then I've found that Lerone Bennett was far from being a lone voice. Many historians have awakened to the bill of goods sold to us by the court historians. Another book I own on this topic was written by another black author who wasn't fooled, the late Stanley K. Lott, who wrote The Truth About American Slavery. I also recommend Samuel Mitcham's It Wasn't About Slavery: Exposing The Great Lie About The Civil War. No matter what you've heard or read, the war wasn't fought over slavery; it was fought over money. I bought this book several years ago but I just found a free download in pdf format here. If you want to get right to the meat of it, jump to chapter XI, "The Real Cause of the War." You can also hear a forty minute interview with the author by clicking HERE.
But if you really want a smorgasbord of offerings on this topic, Thomas DiLorenzo has written a slew of articles available at LewRockwell.com. I've pulled up a link to some of them HERE.
DiLorenzo's books are well worth owning. They include The Real Lincoln, Lincoln Unmasked, and his
most recent volume, The Problem With Lincoln. Within these pages you'll not only learn the truth about Lincoln, but also why the court historians are still covering for him so long after his death. And speaking of going against the preferred narrative, some time ago I came across a stunning eye-opener of a video that I've had a hard time finding again, but here it is if it loads properly. I don't know how long it will stay up, but that video led me to this astonishing download. I have no opinions to express about either of these items, mainly because I know that merely discussing this stuff can get a person arrested in some European countries. So make of it what you will.
And Now We Come To The Mormon Part Of Our Program (Finally!)As I hope I've successfully demonstrated above, whenever you see or hear of something that sounds so absurd that it goes against everything you think you know, the proper response -especially if you notice that growing numbers of intelligent people are embracing that supposed absrudity- is to take a cue from the epistemological discipline and ask yourself "how did I come to know what I think I know about this topic?" Then follow the rule of skepticism and investigate to see if what you think you know can be verified as true.
Another way I have learned to separate truth from error was by learning to think like a lawyer. Now, I get it if your understanding of "thinking like a lawyer" means to think in a way that is cunning and crafty, because goodness knows there are lawyers who behave in that manner. But thinking like a lawyer doesn't mean trying to twist the truth. It means working to uncover the truth, to suss it out, filtering all the false detritus until only the truth remains. To think like a lawyer, in a nutshell, means to follow the admonition of the apostle Paul: investigate all things, then hold fast to what is true.
So how do you do that? First, you learn to question everything, especially your own assumptions. Don't cling to your own favored prejudices, which is another way of saying keep your feelings in check. These are not your living, breathing, children; they are only ideas you have lived with so long that in some ways they may feel like living "children" that you're reluctant to let go of. Be willing to let bad ideas go if they are not properly serving you. Learn to recognize your prejudices. Use reason, logic, and common sense, even if what you are investigating strikes you as unreasonable. A good lawyer does not simply dismiss the views of the other side; he learns his opponents arguments so well that he could argue his opponent's case. In other words, he sees all sides of an issue, not simply his own.
Denver Snuffer is a lawyer, which is why he was so perfectly positioned to put to bed the controversy over the Book of Abraham. You may have been aware of arguments made the past few years that the Book of Abraham was a fraud. Denver investigated the topic so thoroughly that he was able to show that the popular narrative had been proceding on a number of false assumptions. You can find a link to that video presentation in my post titled The Book of Abraham Controversy Finally Laid To Rest. But I recomend the book (the Kindle version is less than four bucks) because it contains footnotes and sources.
This blog you are currently reading is chock-full of essays documenting my discoveries within the Church that were introduced after Joseph Smith's death, but which are clearly undoctrinal, which is one reason they are so easily dismissed by our enemies. Although I embrace the Book of Mormon, the divine calling of Joseph Smith, and the core doctrines of the Restoration, I have come to discover that much of what I was taught growing up in the Church was based on false traditions rather than on revealed truth. Asking yourself "how did I come to know what I think I know?" makes a very handy tool for figuring out whether some "doctrine" you cling to came from scripture, or from some faith promoting rumor you picked up in Seminary.
The Two Greatest False Teachings In The LDS Church TodayTo begin, I will assume you believe as I do that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, appointed to that role by the Lord himself as revealed in D&C 124, D&C 112, and elsewhere. So here is the question: Given that Joseph Smith was a prophet, does it then naturally follow that any or all of the men who succeeded Joseph Smith as presidents of the Church were also appointed by God? Or is it possible they were never actually appointed by God or given the gifts and authority the Lord bestowed upon Joseph?
I created a post on this platform that I believe proves that the authority these men claim is not the same as was given to the prophet Joseph, and that the method they claim to follow that asserts their claims is contrary to the very instructions God provided in the scriptures. That proof is contained HERE. If you have not read that piece already, I hope you will give it the epistemological test and ask yourself "how do I know what I think I know about succession to the presidency, and does what I think I know agree with the instructions the Lord Himself gave on that topic? Or do I just believe it because that's what I've always been told?"
If we are going to go around admonishing each other that it is important that we follow the prophet, shouldn't we want to make absolutely certain that the man we are referring to actually was appointed by the Lord to be His prophet?
Here is the second greatest false teaching in the Church today: It is widely taught that Joseph Smith was the one who originated plural marriage, and that he did so because he was instructed to do so by the Lord. Now the question: Can you provide any contemporary evidence to support that claim?
Before you attempt to answer that question, allow me to direct you to the incredibly informative Youtube Channel hosted by Michelle Stone, titled 132 Problems: Revisiting Mormon Polygamy. This channel has become Information Central for all things relating to the provably false claims that Joseph Smith originated and sanctioned plural marriage. This is where you will learn that far from promoting polygamy, Joseph spent the last weeks of his life attempting to stamp out that vile practice that had taken hold in the Church. A few weeks ago I was a guest on Michelle's program, and if you want a decent introduction to what Joseph was really on about before he was taken, I think that interview is a pretty good place for you to start. Here it is:
The number of Mormons now coming to realize that we have been lied to about Joseph's role in polygamy is massive and growing, and like I said above, if you see a concept in opposition to a belief you consider already settled suddenly gaining acceptance on a large scale, it may be time to start asking yourself "how do I actually know what I know about this?" Lately, in addition to Michelle Stone, a number of skeptics have been uncovering incredible new findings; people like Amberli Peterson, Whitney Horning, Jeremy Hoop, Rob Fatheringham, Shanhi Buddy, Justin Griffin, and many others have, in the past several weeks, been digging through dusty tomes and discovering things about this topic we never knew before. So get ready for some bombshells to come.
With all the information that's coming forth on this topic, at this point I have to say that anyone, within or without the Church, who still clings to the belief that plural marriage originated with Joseph Smith can no longer claim simple ignorance. With the abundance of proof debunking the lies told against Joseph, you would have to exhibit a particular brand of gullibility to insist otherwise. The evidence against that position is simply too overpowering. You disagree? Check out all the amazing resources at 132 Problems and see for yourself.
One Last RecommendationIf you enjoy going down rabbit holes as much as I do, you'll want to check out the latest series at Book of Mormon Perspectives, where the author is currently juggling more crazy possibilities than even I can keep up with, such as where did those intricate buildings come from? And what was Brigham up to on those curious trips to Boston? I'm particularly intrigued with Brigham Young's association with the prominent Jesuit Priest Pierre De Smet, who had spent time among the Indians in the Salt Lake Valley as early as 1841. De Smet's close acquaintance with Brigham Young and his many conversations with him concerning the Rocky Mountain region, as the Catholic official history gives the account, "probably determined the choice of the Mormon prophet, and led to the decision which ultimately settled the Latter Day Saints in the fertile lands they now occupy in Utah."
Or you can just assume the traditional Mormon narrative, which is that Brigham had intended to take the Saints to California before deciding the Salt Lake Valley was close enough. It's your call.
*****
A Note To Readers:This blog now does accept anonymous comments, which means you don't have to use your real name if you don't want to. Make up any fake name you want, but please don't post as "Anonymous" because that just serves to confuse others who may want to respond to your commment.
