Upon first leaving the church, I didn't have any real explanation to give people for why the religion was "false." I had questions, but I felt that I had no answers.
And then... I had nothing. The comparison fell apart. As far as I could recall, the Book Mormon said nothing about Bully the Beef-man or Francis the Fiddler. I felt a bit discouraged here. But the fact that there were so many similarities (up until the last half) still bothered me. Who were these people? What was it about?
As a faithful member, I had done my best to steer away from "anti" material. Most items on my shelf stemmed from personal observations and experiences. It took me several months after leaving before I even sat down to read the CES Letter. It seemed backwards to only pursue the material after I decided to leave the church. Somehow it felt wrong. Most people read the letter and then leave... right?
I began posting some of my experiences on reddit (under a different username) as a way to vent to others and to find a new sense of community. At one point I shared this sentiment, that I felt unjustified in a way for how I came to the conclusion to leave. I quickly found that many... many... people experienced what I had experienced. The loss of faith, which was then followed by reading contrary material.
In the Mormon lens, we saw people who were converted as being someone who had be adequately humbled or prepared. It's the reason missionaries are asked to seek out people who had recently faced a major life change.
A death in the family.
A new child.
A new marriage.
The reality is that people by nature are more open to change when life is changing around them. People join religions and leave religions in response to the events in their life and the state mind that they are in. They seek what resonates with them in that moment, what makes them feel in control.
For a time, I felt that the letter had done it's job. It had given me answers to a few questions, had given me a resource to send people, and had provided a sort of authoritative voice to back up my position. I felt in control.
One afternoon I was spending some time with a friend of mine, who had also left the church several years prior. We had a few drinks and as always, starting talking about the church. He was working on obtaining a PHD in Psychology and was writing his thesis on the impact of high demand religions in childhood. This mutual interest in the church and it's impact on those who leave always left us with plenty to discuss.
We began discussing our faith crises with each other and the conversation quickly turned to the CES Letter. My friend looked at me and said, "I was out the minute I saw that map."
I knew immediately what map he was referring to. On page 13, the author Jeremy Runnells had drawn a comparison showing the landmarks surrounding Joseph Smith and compared it to locations as described in the Book of Mormon.
Is that all it took? To see a familiar story in a different perspective? What made the map effect him when plenty of believing members have seen it as well and shrugged it away? Was he too hasty in his decision? Maybe, maybe not. The fact remains that once he saw it, he couldn't unsee it. His Mormon lens was gone. For whatever reason, that moment forward, the church and the Book of Mormon just weren't the same in his eyes.
I'll never know why the 12 pages before didn't persuade him while the map did. Its likely that he himself wouldn't have an answer. Maybe he had been sufficiently humbled or prepared in some way to accept this new view. The conversation took it's natural course to other topics and we never revisited the subject again. But the statement he made keeps coming up in my mind.
"I was out the minute I saw that map."
New perspective changes everything. Facts mean nothing to someone who hasn't experienced a shift in their perspective, or is at least willing to change. But how do we convince someone that the Book of Mormon isn't an ancient record? How do we demonstrate that it was most likely the product of an imaginative mind? If someone isn't in a place where they are willing to see it through your eyes, is it even possible?
With these questions in mind, I set out to find the source material for the book. Knowing that I needed to understand where it came from. Much like Russell and his maps, I needed to be able to visually show the text as something other than ancient.
Not an easy task, I know. It's been a subject of debate even when it existed as just a manuscript. Entire books have been written on the very subject, both for and against its divinity. Nevertheless, I figured that my best bet was to go back in time and find sources as close to Joseph Smith as I could.
I spent countless hours pouring through old books on the Internet Archive, was up till the early hours of the morning perusing Uncle Dale's Early Mormon Articles. Obsessively reading anything and everything I could put my hands on. I didn't know exactly what I was looking for, but I would know it when I saw it.
Finally, I stumbled across a small newspaper column that had been digitized and shared on NYS Historic Newspapers. Published on October 5th 1825 in the Oxford Gazzette, the story of a family arriving in America is told in a biblical style. It was titled "Chronicles - Chap. 1"
It felt so familiar that I was certain I was on to something big. I went through the story piece by piece and aligned it with what I saw in Nephi. The similarities were incredible. Was this it? Did I have the answer?
And then... I had nothing. The comparison fell apart. As far as I could recall, the Book Mormon said nothing about Bully the Beef-man or Francis the Fiddler. I felt a bit discouraged here. But the fact that there were so many similarities (up until the last half) still bothered me. Who were these people? What was it about? Clearly this short article was a satire of some real events. A humorous retelling of a very real history. The best I could find is the possibly that it was a story of colonizers that fled to America during the Jacobite rising of 1745. But even then, I'm unsure. The names and events that may have been known to the original audience may have possibly been lost to time.
However, it got me thinking, maybe I wasn't too far off base. What if the Book of Mormon was written with a similar premise. That it was a narrative that retold other stories in American history in a different light. Is there further justification for this idea? Could I find more examples of American history beyond this short column? Was there more to it than Runnells' map? I soon discovered that the answer to that question would be yes.
In my next post I will be discussing the literary world of pseudo-biblical works and how they paved the way for the Book of Mormon. From there, we can dive more into the text of the book and break it down piece by piece in much more detail than my initial findings with Chronicles.
If you've read this far, I thank you for hanging in there and allowing me to set the stage a bit. I appreciate your support of this project and wish you the best.
-Mason
----------
"When an honestly mistaken man sees the truth, one of two things happens: (1) he will either cease to be mistaken, or (2) he will cease to be honest. For he will either accept the truth or he will reject it. If he accepts it, he is no longer mistaken; if he rejects it, he is no longer honest. It is as simple as that. There cannot be such a thing as an “honestly mistaken man” who has once seen the truth."
- Fanning Yater Tant
- Next Post -
Comments
Post a Comment