A Slip of the Tongue of Angels: Alma 36:9 and the Very Confusing Commandment

(This one’s for Radio Free Mormon and Bill Reel)

I was reading an old General Conference talk when I found a very confusing commandment in The Book of Mormon. The speaker was Vaughn J. Featherstone, and the talk was “The Sure Word of God” from the October 1972 General Conference. When he quoted from Alma Chapter 36, something about verse nine suddenly stood out to me in a new way. It’s the story where Alma the Younger and the sons of Mosiah are going around seeking to destroy the church of God, so an angel appears and they all fall on the ground. The angel tells Alma to get up, preferring to set him straight while he’s on his feet I guess, and then Alma tells us what happened next:

“And he said unto me: If thou wilt of thyself be destroyed, seek no more to destroy the church of God.”

What does the angel mean here? He basically means “stop seeking to destroy the church of God, or you will be destroyed” – right? I’m pretty sure that’s what he means, because in verse 11 Alma confirms it:

“And the angel spake more things unto me, which were heard by my brethren, but I did not hear them; for when I heard the words—If thou wilt be destroyed of thyself, seek no more to destroy the church of God—I was struck with such great fear and amazement lest perhaps I should be destroyed, that I fell to the earth and I did hear no more.”

But here’s the thing; if the angel’s message is that Alma must stop seeking to destroy the church or else he will be destroyed, why doesn’t he say so? After looking at what the angel says more closely, it doesn’t look like he is actually saying what he means. Let’s read the line again:

“And he said unto me: If thou wilt of thyself be destroyed, seek no more to destroy the church of God.”

In other words, isn’t the angel actually saying, if you will destroy yourself, stop trying to destroy the church? So, if Alma wants to destroy himself, he should stop trying to destroy the church? So, if Alma continues to try to destroy the church, then what happens – he doesn’t get destroyed? It seems like Alma could be forgiven if he’d gotten a little confused here, but fortunately for him, he knew exactly what the angel meant, even if it’s not what the angel said.

Maybe Studio C should do a sketch on this.

ANGEL: (In a voice of thunder) If thou wilt of thyself be destroyed, seek no more to destroy the church of God

ALMA: (Stunned silence, then a double-take). Wait, whaaat?

ANGEL: You heard me, stop trying to destroy the church, or else…

ALMA: Or else what?

ANGEL: Or else I’m gonna destroy you. Or, you will be destroyed. Or, thou wilt be destroyed of thyself. Something like that.

ALMA: But that’s not what you said.

ANGEL: It isn’t? What did I say?

ALMA: I think you said if I will destroy myself, I should stop trying to destroy the church.

ANGEL: I did? Well, uh, whatever, you know what I mean.

ALMA: I think so…but I guess I’m still a little confused.

ANGEL: How so?

ALMA: So, if I stop trying to destroy the church, I will be destroyed?

ANGEL: Exactly. Wait, what? No, if you stop trying to destroy the church, that would be good, so I won’t destroy you in that case. If you continue trying to destroy the church, that’s when there’s gonna be trouble.

ALMA: So, you’re not going to destroy me if I stop, but if I don’t stop, that’s when you destroy me, or that’s when I wilt be destroyed of myself, right?

ANGEL: Exactly.

ALMA: But you can see why I was confused now?

ANGEL: Oh yeah, definitely. Sorry, I just pulled a double shift over in Jerusalem and I guess I’m a little off my game.

ALMA: I understand. And thanks for talking this through with me. I just wanted to make sure I heard you right.

ANGEL: You know, I appreciate that, I really do.

ALMA: Well, I’m going to fall to the ground in great fear and amazement now.

ANGEL: Oh, that would be great. Thanks again (Alma falls to the ground). Oh, and, little heads up, you might not be able to talk or move or anything for a few days, but if you keep your chin up, everything will turn out ok in the end (nudges Alma’s lifeless body with his toe). Out cold. Man, that was fast. The guy’s a natural. (Blows rapsberry) Jeez, I kind of fumbled my line there, didn’t I? I hope he makes me sound better than that on the plates…

Possible Reasons for the Very Confusing Commandment by the Angel in Alma 36:

  • The angel misspoke. Even angels experience a slip of the tongue from time to time.
  • Alma got it wrong.
  • Mormon got it wrong.
  • The seer stone got it wrong.
  • Joseph got it wrong.
  • Oliver got it wrong.
  • There’s nothing wrong with it. It’s a perfectly clear and authentic commandment by an angel, but Mormon Mouse is ignorant of the Middle and/or King James English used by angels, and furthermore, he is blinded by his evil, apostate desire to find fault with The Book of Mormon.

Whatever the reason for my current confusion over this particular passage of scripture, after all the thousands of changes The Church has made to The Book of Mormon over the years, it seems like it wouldn’t hurt much, and might even help in some way, if they’d tidy up Alma’s angel’s big line. Maybe try something like this:

“Seek no more to destroy the church of God or thou shalt be destroyed.”

Call me crazy, but I think that sounds a lot better.

Inside of the Body Inside of My Body

The philosopher Alan Watts once said:

“Really, the fundamental, ultimate mystery — the only thing you need to know to understand the deepest metaphysical secrets — is this: that for every outside there is an inside and for every inside there is an outside, and although they are different, they go together.”

If that is true then it would spell trouble for one of the most fundamental parts of Mormon doctrine – the idea that we are all eternal spirit bodies sent from our Heavenly home to be born into and tested inside of our physical bodies here on Earth. The Church would have us believe that we are spirit bodies in the same form as our physical bodies (Ether 3:16), residing in and controlling our physical bodies from within.

But if every outside has an inside, then there are at least two main problems with this idea.

First, the outside of our physical bodies implies that there is an inside to them as well, and we all know that there is. So, if on the inside of our bodies we find only the inside of our bodies, where is the spirit body? Take a look inside anyone’s body and all you will ever find is the inside of their body and nothing else – no separate spirit body is ever anywhere to be found (but please let me know if you find one). But whether it can be detected or not, even if we do have a spirit body that is separate from and inside of our physical bodies, then that spirit body would also have an outside and an inside. But what’s on the inside of our spirit bodies? As far as I know The Church doesn’t say.

If I have a body inside of my body that is controlling my body to some degree, what’s inside of the body inside of my body? Another body controlling that body? And if I have a body inside of my body that is controlled by a body inside of it, what’s inside of the body inside of my body inside of my body? Another body controlling that body? And so on and so forth, ad infinitum. And which one am I, or am I all of them? Or am I none of them, but something else entirely?

To postulate that a human body has a controlling body in the same form inside of it, like some kind of Russian nesting doll, only answers a question by creating another question. And either we get caught in an infinite regression of an outside found inside of an inside which implies an inside inside of that, or one of these bodies doesn’t have a matching body nested inside of it. Maybe one of these bodies has only its own inside inside of it, and not the outside of another body. I pick the first body.

The bodies we already have, our physical bodies, have an outside and an inside. On the inside we already find plenty of inside systems of parts that make us tick, taking up space and telling us, that although we may still want to believe it for various reasons, we don’t really need another body inside of our body to control us or to explain anything about us at all.

If the outside of another body such as a spirit body is not detectable on the inside of a human body by an outside observer, then the human body is only one human form, with its own inside, and not two human forms with one, spiritual, placed inside of the other, physical, as in the traditional Mormon belief. The human body does contain elements of itself inside of itself which have their own outsides and insides and outsides inside of that, but they are there in the body to be found and studied as far as the methods of scientific inquiry permit, as opposed to the Mormon spirit body which supposedly is there but can only be discerned by “purer eyes” (see Doctrine and Covenants 131:7-8), which is probably just a fancy way of excusing why it’s invisible. And 179 years after Joseph Smith instructed the world as to why it’s invisible, even with all of our advanced science and technology, it’s still invisible.

Not only is the Mormon spirit body invisible, it is undetectable in any way, except when we believe that it is detectable. Some might say that it is detectable because they believe or even know that they feel it, and to that I would say, that may be true for you, but it is not true for me, at least not anymore, because I now have other explanations for the spiritual feelings I had before. And if it’s not true for both of us, then it may be true for one of us, but it’s probably not true on its own.

Humans bodies are living organisms, and, true to their nature, they grow from the inside out, from a single cell into trillions, and they do so on their own as part of and in relationship to their environment, because that is what organisms do. Self-organizing, self-replicating, self-maintaining – living organisms. They do not rely on an outside agent to inhabit them in order to do what they do. The agent is not inside the organism, the agent IS the organism, because the organism has grown into the agent.

By teaching that each of us is really an immortal spirit body inside of a mortal physical body, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints separates and hides us from our true selves. Rather than fully understanding and appreciating what our bodies are already doing naturally on their own, The Church stubbornly clings to the archaic idea that the experience of human life is too important, too complex, and too sacred to allow it to explain itself as it is on its own, rather than as The Church thinks it should be. Ironically, as the church that places the most emphasis on living prophets and continuing revelation, it is the one best poised to evolve in the direction of science and philosophy on this issue of the spiritual vs. the physical, what they really are, and which one really makes the other move.

If anything, it would make more sense to say that the physical human body itself is a spirit body. If it can’t experience itself before its own birth or after its own death, then its experience of itself is eternal to itself. If at the subatomic level the body is mostly made up of “empty space” or something more like electron clouds, then it is ghost-like at some level. And as far as we know from our own direct experience, we need our physical human bodies in order to even experience the spiritual. Even with a near death experience, although the experiencer may feel they have had an out of body experience, they never would have had it, and they never could have told anyone about it, without their physical body.

If we cannot know the spiritual without the physical, then isn’t a physical which controls the spiritual far more likely than a spiritual which controls the physical? And if the physical body is eternal in some way, ghost-like in some way, and always there in some way during a spiritual experience, what more do we need to call it spiritual? Do we need it to do any other tricks for us? How about healing itself? Or healing others like it? And what about its brain, widely considered the most complex object in the known universe?

In thinking about the human brain, the control center of the body, we can come back to the problem of outsides and insides. Does The Church’s spirit body include a spirit brain inside of it? If so, does that mean my physical brain has a spiritual brain inside of it? If it does, what is on the inside of my spiritual brain? I could outside/inside my brain for a few steps or for forever to try to get to the brain that has only its own brain matter inside of it, or I coud just admit that the physical, human brain inside my head is the only one I have. And there is a very real sense in which I don’t actually have it at all. The one body with one brain that I feel myself to be stirs my soul with a mystery, wonder, and appreciation that I’ve realized is far more spiritual to me than to pass the buck to a spirit body.

As I’ve heard the late Christopher Hitchens observe, “I don’t have a body, I am a body.” And if I am one body, then I cannot be another at the same time. Whether I am physical or spiritual, although I will not last forever in this form to others, I will last forever in this form to me…and how could I ask for anything more?

The Book of Mormon Cutting Room Floor

What parts of the translation of The Book of Mormon were left out of the story? Couldn’t Joseph Smith and Olivery Cowdery have simply burned their notes and drafts when they were done with them? Just because people said he didn’t use notes or references, doesn’t mean he didn’t use notes or references, as we know from the lengthy King James Bible quotes, including translation errors specific to the 1769 edition, an edition which Joseph Smith would have had access to.

It is often ignored that Joseph Smith himself never said he didn’t use any notes or references, that he never said much about it at all but that he did it through the power of God. That could mean an awful lot of different things.

If Joseph didn’t always, but only sometimes or often produced the text of The Book of Mormon in the way that witnesses described, then their descriptions of the process could still be truthful, and even they themselves might not realize how much they left out in their descriptions, or if they did realize it, not give it much thought at all. I think human nature is often to focus on what is most interesting or important to the individual telling or hearing a story, to the exclusion of other potentialy important information.

If I am someone who smiles and laughs alot at work, then those who meet and work with me might describe me to other people as someone who is always smiling and laughing, when in fact they also spend quite a bit of time with me when I’m not smiling and laughing, but it doesn’t impress them enough to mention it. Me smiling and laughing makes it into their mental movie of our experiences. Everything else about me gets edited out onto the cutting room floor.

Three Truths for Mormons

Based on how I’m feeling at the moment, I would like to share with Mormons (and with members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, President Nelson…) three truths that I’ve learned since I began studying church history, doctrine, and culture, as well as science, philosophy, and religion:

  1. There is no good evidence that anyone or anything exists yet that places specific thoughts or feelings in your mind or body other than you. Everyone should educate themselves on the latest and best science on the human brain, because we all have one and we are all nothing without it, so shouldn’t we understand it and take care of it well? As far as we know at this time, your thoughts and feelings are yours and yours alone, and they are a function of your body (especially your brain), which is a function of your DNA and your environment. This means that Satan has no way to tempt you and God has no way to inspire you, other than by acting on their own in objective reality. The correct answer to the age-old Mormon question “How do I know if it’s my own thoughts or The Holy Ghost?” is that it’s all you and it’s always all you. Personally I think this means that either God and Satan do not exist or that they do not exist in the form traditionally taught by The Church.
  2. There is no good reason for the gold plates to be withheld from the world. I think the two most popular explanations I’ve come across for why the rest of the world beyond the eleven witnesses cannot see Joseph Smith’s gold plates are these: that God wanted to protect The Book of Mormon from the kind of translation errors and worldly interference that are found in The Bible, and that God wants to test our faith. Neither of these explanations works in any kind of objectively true way. Even if the plates had ended up safe in a museum (which God could surely bring about, couldn’t he?), Joseph Smith still would have had first crack at a full translation, and if his translation was correct it would ultimately win out in the kind of world and culture we’ve lived in since 1830, thereby supporting and confirming his true prophetic calling from God. Also, if the plates were confirmed as an authentic historical artifact and were available for anyone to inspect in a museum, faith and conversion would increase, but faith would still be required to believe and know that the supernatural and miraculous events described on the plates were objectively real and actually occured. Knowing that the text of The Bible is authentically ancient has never removed the burden of faith from the believer as far as I know, and neither would it with The Book of Mormon. In other words, knowing with scientific proof that the ancient inhabitants of MesoAmerica actually recorded on gold plates that they had supernatural and miraculous experiences is different from whether they actually had those experiences that they claimed to have – faith is required either way, so God has no good reason that I know of to withold the plates from the world. However well-intentioned, withholding evidence like this is a classic technique of the magician and con artist. If Jesus is “the way, the truth, and the life,” then shouldn’t we agree and remember that the truth does not withhold evidence of itself? Never trust that you have all of the truth from someone who won’t let you look at all of the evidence.
  3. Although he is all-knowing, God never says or does anything in the scriptures to indicate that he has any special knowledge or insight into why his children do what they do. The only reason he ever seems to give for their misbehavior is that they’ve misbehaved, they’ve sinned, they’ve chosen wrong because they’ve rejected the good and embraced the evil. Modern science and human experience tells us that in reality there can be a great variety of reasons that people do what they do, reasons over which they have little or no control, and that identifying and trying to work with those reasons seems to help bring about a rate of positive change that surely is as good and likely much better than simply commanding people to repent.

If You Never Admit That You’re Wrong

If you never admit that you’re wrong, then either you’re never wrong, or you’re wrong and you can’t admit it.

If you never apologize, then either you never do anything that deserves an apology, or you do things that deserve an apology but do not apologize for them.

If leaders should never be criticized, then either leaders do nothing worthy of criticism, or they do things worthy of criticism but should never be criticized for them.

If “The Church is true” no matter what, then either no part of the church is false or parts of the church are false and their falsity should be covered up, explained away, or ignored.

If an all-powerful, anthropomorphic God exists no matter what, then either no good evidence against the reality of this kind of God’s existence exists, or good evidence exists and should be covered up, explained away, or ignored.

If the Mormon priesthood and temple ban against blacks was right then either there is nothing very wrong with treating people worse because of the color of their skin if it’s God’s will, or the ban was very wrong and The Church can’t admit it.

If Joseph Smith’s polygamy was right, then either there’s nothing very wrong with cheating on your wife if it’s God’s will, or Joseph’s Smith’s polygamy was very wrong and The Church can’t admit it.

If Joseph Smith’s polyandry was right, then either there’s nothing very wrong with marrying someone else’s wife if it’s God’s will, or Joseph Smith’s polyandry was very wrong and The Church can’t admit it.

If The Book of Abraham is true no matter what, than either it was translated from Egyptian on papyrus as it claims to be, or it was not really translated from Egyptian on papyrus but this fact should be covered up, explained away, or ignored.

If The Book of Mormon is an objectively real, historical record as it claims to be, then either the plates were physically real and God, Moroni, and Joseph Smith refused to let more than a small number of friends and relatives know that for sure (objectively), or the plates were fake, or only spiritually (subjectively) real, and could only be seen “with the eye of faith,” as Martin Harris reportedly said, which is a phrase of Moroni’s from Ether 12:19 in The Book of Mormon.

If the priesthood will always govern The Church, and if women will never have the priesthood, then either women will be subject to men in some way forever, or women should have the priesthood and The Church refuses to give it to them.

If The Church now teaches that it’s okay to be gay but it’s not okay to act on it, then either The Church doesn’t really believe it’s okay to be gay and this is just a compromise, or on some level it knows it’s okay and is unwilling or unable to admit it. Telling people it’s okay to be what they are but it’s not okay to do what they do is the same as telling people it’s not okay to be what they are. Being and doing go together, like two sides of the same coin, and cannot be separated.

If Satan Is Real

If Satan is real and as bad as they say, wouldn’t things be even worse than they are? The Mormon “Plan of Salvation” implies that Satan has access to the brains of all human beings, otherwise how could he tempt us? That is, if you believe that the brain is the source of thought (and I hope that you do). But, if “…the devil, the father of all lies…” (Moses 4:4), presumably the most evil being in the universe, has access to the brains of all human beings, why doesn’t he tempt us more than he does? Why doesn’t he more frequently and consistently fill all of our minds with worse thoughts than he does – suicidal, homicidal thoughts that eventually drive more and more people to kill or be killed, for example?

To me, the answer must be one of three things:

Either Satan is not real, or he is not as bad as we’ve been taught as Mormons, or, God himself is monitoring and adjusting the frequency, consistency, and intensity of the temptations that Satan places into human minds.

If the answer is the latter, to think that the all-good God himself is directly managing the kinds of dark thoughts that have been known to haunt the human mind could be a chilling thought indeed. Chilling particularly, when it comes to the minds of innocent children, who, if Mormonism is as true as we’ve been told, have to begin sharing access to their brains with Satan when they reach the “age of accountability” – eight years old.

Presumably there would need to be some kind of access granted that was not granted before – kind of like God finally giving Satan the password to the Wi-Fi so he can finally start uploading his tempting thoughts. Presumably there would also need to be some kind of system of checks and balances to ensure that the most evil and untrustworthy being in the universe, to whom God has just given out the Wi-Fi password, doesn’t abuse his human-brain-internet privileges, especially when he goes after the kids.

But if Satan is using his God-given access to upload his Satanic branded content into the brains of everyone age eight and above, and God is managing Satan so he doesn’t go too hog wild in our heads, then who is ultimately responsible for all the Satany stuff popping up in our thoughts? Dana Carvey’s Church Lady famously asked:

“Could it be…Satan?”

But the better question is whether it could be God. Or, better yet, whether God really needs this Satan guy at all. Or whether we do.

I don’t know about you, but personally, I can think up plenty of bad stuff on my own without anyone’s help. I can think up plenty of good stuff too.

But The Book of Mormon teaches in Moroni 7:12, “…all things which are good cometh of God; and that which is evil cometh of the devil…”

Which leaves me to wonder: if all good thoughts come from God and all bad thoughts come from the devil, what kinds of thoughts come from me?

Could it be…all of them?

Maybe it’s finally time to grow up and take responsibility for our own thoughts – all of them.

The Whole Truth

Never trust that you have the whole truth from someone who won’t let you look at all of the evidence.

In the case of Joseph Smith and the gold plates, his claim that he gave them back to the angel Moroni smells of deceit. When I had my faithful Mormon hat on, I accepted his claim without a second thought really. Of course he had to give them back to the angel Moroni because God didn’t want the world to mess The Book of Mormon up like it messed up the Bible, right? Now that I have my skeptic’s hat on I’ve realized that an intentional withholding of the very evidence that would validate your claim is a classic characteristic of con artists and magicians. Grant Palmer helped me realize that Joseph Smith believed the ends justify the means when you’re bringing people to Christ. The faithful might say that God withholds evidence to test our faith, but that doesn’t work in the case of The Book of Mormon (if ever). Why? Because even with a historically authenticated set of gold plates in a museum, it would still require faith to believe that the supernatural events that the plates describe actually happened and aren’t just ancient stories.

What is the Biggest Problem with The Book of Mormon?

There are a lot of things that now bother me about The Book of Mormon and someday I hope to write about all of those things. Perhaps 3 Nephi Chapters 8 through 10 will be at the top of my list. Along with 1 Nephi 4, Alma 14-15, and Helaman 7-11. Maybe I’ll call it “Bad Parts in The Book of Mormon” or something like that.

But for today, I’d like to share something that at the moment feels to me like the biggest problem with The Book of Mormon. It seems obvious in hindsight, but it recently occurred to me and made an impression on my mind in a way that it never had before.

The biggest problem with the Book of Mormon is the lack of evidence that confirms its historical authenticity to any degree of consensus amongst non-Mormon scholars. Instead, the consensus, whether explicit or implied, seems to be that it is not historically authentic, that it is not an English translation of an ancient manuscript. Otherwise, they would be much more interested…wouldn’t they?

I’ve come to realize that there is no shortage of affirmative evidence when you’re trying to show that a thing is what it is – it’s when you’re trying to show that a thing is something it’s not that you run into trouble.  

I’ve heard of historical artifacts (including manuscripts) deemed authentic by experts that were later shown to be fake, but I’ve never heard of the opposite, though I acknowledge it may exist. But how common are false negatives in historical authentication? In other words, how often are artifacts that are deemed fake by experts later shown to actually be authentic?  Isn’t it true that everything about a genuine artifact attests to its authenticity, or at least does not detract from it, because, after all, it’s authentic?

It’s almost as if the church believes that the world’s scholars don’t know how to tell if an English translation of over five hundred pages pages of material from the ancient world really is authentic or not, and even if they did know then they can’t be trusted to be properly interested or to tell the truth about it.  It’s kind of insulting to scholars if you really think about it. As if scholars wouldn’t be thrilled with such an important discovery.

With or without the gold plates (which are another important subject for another day), the so called translation of the material, the content of The Book of Mormon, counts as a sort of historical artifact in and of itself and as such it opens itself to the same methods of scholarly inquiry and assessment as any other ancient text, which the church welcomes when it creates possibilities to validate their religious teachings, and which the church fights against when it does not.

When the heat of evidence and inquiry gets too hot for the historicity of The Book of Mormon, the Mormon faithful almost always flip to the book’s spiritual truth and value, which they say can only be spiritually ascertained, but even if this is true the historicity problem does not go away. It’s a tactical flip of the coin, but no matter how great one side of the coin is you’re still stuck with the other side whether you want to talk about it or not.