THE ANTI-MORMON DILEMMA -Response to a Forum Post

The following response was posted on LDSSingles.com

You're sincere in trying, and correct as far as you go, but you are
operating on a very obvious assumption, and from a rather stereotyped
point of view. Maybe I can help you, if you are able to confront your
belief system. First, I'll ask you two questions easy to grasp even
for a sixth grader, although I would never have such a conversation
with a child, but I am using this example to encourage you to respond
with that degree of innocence; a sixth grader would, if they could
understand your questions, be more likely to respond meaningfully and
without equivocation, as they generally have nothing to prove:

1) “Why do you suppose that children born of Muslim parents become
Muslims, or born of Jewish parents, become Jews, or born to Protestant
parents, become Protestants, or born to Mormon or Catholic parents,
become Mormons or Catholics, or born to Hindu or Buddhist parents,
become Buddhists or Hindus?”

I would encourage anyone to seriously consider this question. It isn't
frivolous. A Buffoon or a Yahoo can spout anything[see footnotes 1, 2]
but what I am hoping to elicit is a reflective response.[3]

2)The next question is, “Do you belong to a faith or sect, the
fundamental pretext of which purports, or subscribes to a belief in,
the existence of a virgin-born savior?”

This is of course a leading question. The reply is “yes” for any
Christian, so the next question becomes,

3)"What do you think is relevant about the fact that the prophet,
Jesus, reportedly born of a virgin, is a much later version of at
LEAST the following other prophets or saviors alledged to have been
virgin-born?:

1-Gautama Buddha, born of the virgin, Maya, around 600 BC
2-Dionysius, an early Roman savior born of a virgin
3-Attis, born of the virgin, Nama, around 200 BC
4-Indra, born of a virgin in Tibet around 700 BC
5-Adonis, (a Babylonian god) born of the virgin, Ishtar
6-Krishna, (a Hindu diety) born of the virgin, Devaki, in around 1200 BC
7-Zoroaster, born of a virgin around 1200-1500 BC
8-Mithra, born of a virgin (in a stable) on 25 December around 600 BC.
His resurrection was celebrated on Easter.[4]

This list excludes other would-be or claimed saviors, like Tonatiuh,
the figure in the center of the Aztec calendar stone, who reportedly
gained the ability to save mankind by throwing himself into the fire.
His resurrection following that act of self-immolation imparted that
ability. Other gods, as in Egypt reportedly were resurrected gaining
the ability to save or intercede for man as well. History is replete
with examples. Being a Savior seems to be a highly sought after
calling across both time and space. There is certainly nothing Jungian
about historically known examples such as the foregoing list, which is
hardly exhaustive. Because of the obviously critical portent of the
question, I ask you to seriously reflect prior to a two-part response.
If you are unwilling to confront your beliefs, this is a good place to
stop, so that what follows will not upset or disturb you, as that is
neither my intent, nor of any value to you:

a) “Were you aware that Jesus, the Christ was the last in a long list
of prophet-saviors, all of whom claimed or were reported to have been
born of virgins?”

If you say, “No,” (the usual response), I would then ask:

b) “What do you suppose that implies, if anything, and how does it
cause you to confront your beliefs, if it does.”

Again, I am hoping for a reflective response, not an Augustinian
attempt at authoritarian, theocratic dismissal. You will notice that
nothing above is anti-Mormon. It may fairly be termed anti-organized
religion. I admit that there are numerous societal benefits to
practiced religious faith, as long as use of the words, “blasphemy,”
“heresy,” and “apostasy” are held to a minimum. They are highly
inflammatory (book burnings didn't cease between the destruction of
the Library of Alexandria and the Inquisition, they just evolved into
human burnings. If you can find one of the “witchs” of Salem much
later in time who escaped with her life, ask her!). The last thing we
need in today's world is another Inquisition. Let's all do our best to
remain (truly) committed to democracy, not theocracy. The recent
election may reflect that the majority of Americans thought the
Republican party had been seized by right-wing extremists who were
attempting to imprint theocratic attributes upon our democracy. If the
rebuff of both the electoral landslide and popular vote are related to
that issue (I will attach a link to an article from "16 small stones"
to that effect at the end of this post), then the message should be
heard loud and clear. Keep church and state separate. We are a
democracy, not a theocracy.

My point regarding your post about what you characterize as
"anti-Mormon" comments is this: it is intellectually legitimate for
thinking individuals to contest conflicted elements of organized
religion, even if they are themselves a member of one of the
denominations or sects. But history tells us that virtually all
religions will do almost anything to silence or disenfranchise such
individuals in deference to perpetuation of their continuation as a
powerful, highly bureaucratic organized entity which can wield both
religious and political power where the laws permit. They fear that if
their paradigm is not vigorously defended, it will dwindle along with
the loyalty and number of their flock to the extent that critical
thinking is allowed to be voiced as dissenting opinion, and as
knowledge increases, especially among the more educated, and
especially if they are attuned to the discoveries of science.[5] This
was the first most evident in the examples of Copernicus and Galileo,
among others, although it began in Christendom with the early church
under the auspices of such political figures as Queen "Bloody Mary" of
England, and the first Roman emperor/pope equivalent, Constantine, who
got all of his murdering out of the way before being baptized, and who
banished all of those who disagreed with the theological opinions he
chose on a whim to endorse. This is a good early example of what we
would today term, excommunication, where "heretical" theological
opinion is involved.

Now before you launch into an instructive response, you should be
informed that I was a Mormon between 1973 and 1999, and that I did not
leave the church for unworthiness reasons, but for ideological
reasons, discussed in an explanatory letter submitted to the
leadership and to my Mormon friends at the time of my withdrawal from
that church.

Was this the frivolous, unstudied act of a Jack (“sort of”) Mormon who
never had a testimony like yours anyway? No, it wasn't. If it were, my
opinions and this response would have no more value than chaff in the
wind, and no more gravity than a barking dog. So I'll establish that
fact by providing you with a portion of my background. HOWEVER, PLEASE
do not recieve or perceive this as self-aggrandizement, a god complex
personality disorder, or other attempt to place myself on a pedestal.
I tell you what follows because I think it causes one much greater
reflection when a prominent individual leaves the church. When I heard
that Ferguson had lost his testimony, I was quite taken aback, because
he authored, "One Fold and One Shepherd," one of the first books I
read as a new member in May of 1973. I have no delusions of grandeur.
The more I learn, the more humble I become. However, if there is truly
an all powerful, omniscient god who loves and cares for me, he will
keep his promise, "Ask, and ye shall receive, seek, and ye shall find,
Knock, and it shall be opened unto you."

As you will note from the following biographical information I am
providing, I did ask, I did seek, and I did knock. I left the church
because after becoming an archaeologist and a geologist both, and
considering sources of information generally shunned by Christian
churches, all in my personal quest for knowledge and truth, I did not
receive the answers. I still continue and will soon be intensifying
that search as I will discuss later on in this response to your post,
but I hope you will be gracious in your receipt of the information I
am providing, as it lays me open to some extent before you:

I incorporated the Zarahemla Geological Foundation, a non-profit
entity, the mission of which was to establish the Book of Mormon. What
do I mean by “establish” it? Here's a clue:

OH, ZARAHEMLA

I stood and looked across Jerusalem.
I saw the glistening streets in the sun of the day,
I saw the shadows of the night.
I was looking at the city where the Savior had left the earth
But as I rejoiced to see Jerusalem, my heart cried out within me:
“Oh, Zarahemla, the OTHER Holy City;
when shall I see THEE, or feel THY evening breeze upon my face?
Some say they do not need Thee – that Thou art Lost . . . forever.
But I know that I shall find Thee.
Oh, Zarahemla, I shall COME for Thee”
-by Michael M. Hobby and Troy J. Smith Zarahemla Quarterly,
Vol. Two, Number Two [Zarahemla Geological Foundation; 1988]

-I published, and largely funded, the Zarahemla Quarterly for three years

-I wrote and narrated the Zarahemla Fireside Broadcast, aired on KBYU,
introduced by Dr. Paul Chessman, professor emeritus of religion at BYU
and paid member of the foundation at the beginning of each segment on
Sunday evenings. Within another context, he said of me, "Michael Hobby
is closer to resolving Book of Mormon archaeology than any of us."
This is meaningful coming from the producer of "Ancient America
Speaks," and various other documentaries and books which discussed
metal plates and BOM archaeology.

-I established, and almost solely funded, the Darien-Orinoco Fund,
which supported the study of what we felt were the most significant
and relevant (to the Book of Mormon) geophysical and archaeological
aspects of the Isthmus of Panama. Several issues of the Quarterly
carried pertinent articles and extensive photography pertaining to and
relating research results stemming from those activities. What did
they include?

a-Satellite imagery of the Panama Canal Zone (the “Narrow Pass” of the
Book of Mormon), and the Gulf of Uraba, Colombia [“by the place where
the sea divides the land (northward from the land southward”-BOM)].
The gulf now continues to be rapidly filled by sediments carried by
rivers from the mountain backbone which runs from one end of Panama to
the other, receiving precipitation rates as high as 200 inches per
year. Our own Mississippi river delta is actually seven ancient
deltas. In fact the southeastern half of Arkansas, almost the entirety
of the states of Mississippi and Louisiana, and much of east Texas
were all formed by delta deposits carried to the Gulf of Mexico by the
mighty Mississippi over hundreds of thousands of years, significantly
converting the ancient Mississippi embayment to an extension of the
continent in that area. That is what has happened and is ongoing in
the Gulf of Uraba, which once protruded much farther inland, rendering
the isthmus at that point extremely narrow in diameter.

These photographs were acquired by the Spot I satellite, owned by the
French Spot corporation. The Gulf of Uraba image was the most
difficult to obtain due to the fact that the gulf is almost always
obscured by cloud cover. But during a fortuitous virtually cloud-free
day, the satellite was successful. We gifted the large, color
negatives to the governments of Panama and Colombia, respectively.
b-We ran the entire length of the three major rivers from the
highlands all the way to the ocean. The recorded movements and battles
described in the Book of Mormon could not have occurred as described
if the Lamanite armies contending with the Nephites are imagined to
have crossed these rivers, which reduces the effective passable land
bridge separating North American from South America to a “narrow neck”
indeed.

c-We studied the archaeology of the sparsely and variously inhabited
isthmus in detail, beginning with the work of other archaeologists and
then imposing the results of our own research, including new
discoveries made since earlier research such as that dealing with the
"Man-on-slave" motif. Many of the more general results were serially
released in the Quarterly, including the systematic analysis of
theories put forward by others, particularly Sorenson and Palmer. All
three years of the Quarterly will be scanned and posted in their
entirety on this blog in the not too distant future.

6 -I was neither an armchair archaeologist, armed with map and ruler,
nor an armchair geologist. I obtained the academic preparation
necessary to address resolution of what has, against all logic (if one
believes the Book of Mormon is a collection of writings produced in
real time by the prophet protagonists of the account) been a
stupifying search for Book of Mormon geography and archaeology which
can be correlated (even loosely) with the archaeological record, as
well as the geology and geography of our hemisphere.

Don't get me wrong; just because a conventional archaeologist “says
somethin' don't make it so!” Dynamic archaeological opinion isn't the
problem. Heck, when the Lenape Stone, which depicts several hunters
attempting to kill a mammoth was first discovered[7], archaeologists
of the day claimed the poor old farmer who turned it up with his plow
had created a fake, because current opinion then was that the mammoths
had all perished with the dinosaurs; therefore, it was impossible for
a piece of slate to portray man and mammoth together[An article with a
picture of the Lenape Stone is in the first issue of the Quarterly and
you will be able to view it on this site before long. Keep an eye on
the "related interesting links on this blog as well]. They couldn't
look at evidence to the contrary with their own eyes without
dismissing it out of hand. Poor farmer. Had he plowed it up a few
decades later, he would have been lauded for turning it over to
scholars, because by then, archaeological opinion had evolved,
attributing to man responsibility for the extinction of the mammoth by
over hunting!

No, archaeological opinion is not the nemesis to date of Book of
Mormon archaeology; the natural geography, geology and archaeological
data are. They present contextual and chronological challenges which
have been to date insurmountable, although I will continue to keep
these matters fully in mind as my ongoing research continues. It has
required, at least in my case, significant academic preparation and
hands-on research in the field as well as in libraries, ancient and
modern, to address with any hope of success.

-I actually crossed Sorenson and Palmer's “Narrow Neck,” which they
proposed is the Isthmus of Tehuantepec with my team, from the mouth of
the Coatzacoalcos River on the northern coast to Salina Cruz on the
coast of the Gulf of Tehuantepec to the south, a distance of over 200
kilometers; nothing narrow about that, and it doesn't include all of
the vertical extension of the topography.

-I've been to both Hill Cumorahs claimed, the one in New York, and the
one Sorenson and Palmer picked out in the Tuxtla mountains, one of the
principal areas inhabited by the early Olmecs, a group of Africans who
appear to have accompanied Thoth of Egypt when he was expelled,
according to pre-biblical historical records of Egyptian and Sumerian
derivation.

-I've been to dozens of Olmec and Maya sites and dozens of other
precolumbian sites as well from Canada to Argentina. In fact, I have
only three countries left in which to do pending first-time (field)
research: Ecuador, Peru, and more in Colombia. This is in addition to
much more ongoing research, including addressing some chronological
and numerological problems which have yet to be resolved, particularly
in Mexico, but which extend over most if not all of the western
hemisphere.

Let me stress again at this point that I am not glorifying my efforts.
I am actually giving you a lot of information which you may find of
value should you wish to become involved. Or you can just follow the
blog to keep an eye on what happens in the future.

I have a great deal more research and writing to undertake in areas I
have completed work in before, which is why I am permanently
“retiring” (yeah, right!) to Mexico, to Merida in the Yucatan, one of
my favorite citiess, due to its proximity to the Caribbean and to the
Maya heartland. In the boonies of the Yucatan, spoken Yucatecan Maya
is still encountered.

There are two posts on this blog I placed recently, which give
examples of what geoarchaeology is (like archaeoastronomy, it combines
training in two disciplines, in this case, archaeology and geology).
There aren't many of us, but the number will increase. As my examples
illustrate, the combined disciplines give increased acuity to eyes and
ears. In the book, Forbidden Archaeology, there is an account of work
done at one site by geology professionals also trained in archaeology
(There's an excellent summary by Dr.Virginia Steen McIntyre, a member
of that team, in the book, Discovering the Mysteries of Ancient
America). When they uncovered evidence that disagreed (markedly) with
conventional archaeological opinion, they got the Lenape Stone
treatment ("and they aint farmers!").

I don't give a rat's ass what conventional opinion is about anything.
My only personal and professional quest is the discovery of truth,
which generally bears little, if any, resemblance to what we think it
is or should be. What most accounts for this unfortunate reality is
that humans, proteges of learned behavior from birth, tend to think
and postulate within familiar, learned conceptual contexts, generally
not outside the box. It's just too unnerving, alien, and disorienting
for them. Those that dare are protectively labeled as the “lunatic
fringe.” Make sense? There are many consequences to the quest for
truth. My many Mormon friends evaporated when I left the church.

Notwithstanding the bane of social ostracism, it is the least of the
challenges in a deep and prolonged quest for truth. A series of
important phenomena in which many paths to additional truths will be
encountered are generally excluded from active pursuit within
Christian religious contexts. Psychic phenomena for example are
relegated to “witches” and the stake. I would recommend to more
open-minded individuals reading such books as, "Tracks isn the Psychic
Wilderness." We don't have all the answers. We have barely scratched
the surface. Increased knowledge of astronomical phenomena which
preclude the perpetuation of religious Copernicanism and seem to
require a general distribution of intelligent life throughout the
universe breeds Augustinian attempts at dismissal. The testimony of
the fossil record within a geological context breeds contempt for
science by the dogmatic. Therein lies the rub that comes by putting
the quest for truth before the quest for orthodoxy and atonement.
Attend if you will. But more important to me is to advance
civilization and increase knowledge and truth to the extent that my
humble, if not insignificant efforts are capable. Not just for myself
or my family, but for everyone. That includes you and anyone else who
reads this post.

You have to start somewhere, as that imaginary sixth-grader can
attest. I have been a very spiritual person, from the nascent age of
about eight, when Carmen Crawford, the husband of my mother's cousin,
Connie, took me to his church alone with my parents permission during
a visit. We lived in a suburb of Little Rock, Arkansas at the time,
and they lived in nearby Benton. He talked to me about Jesus and how
he had died for me. It was dimly lit in their chapel, the only light
coming through the stained glass windows, but I remember crying
because Jesus had died for me.

I was first baptized a Methodist at age 10 (my parents were members of
the Methodist church at that time). I was next "saved" again and
baptized a second time as a member of the Nazarene church (which my
parents had joined). I used to sing solos frequently. The Nazarene
churches would meet on occasion at what could best be termed,
singathons, and the entire program between opening and closing prayers
on such evenings would be singing, both special presentations and
congregational hymns. I used to love them. One time, I was supposed to
sing, "I know who holds tomorrow," but I had been sick and hoarse for
days. The Nazarene is a pentacostal type of sect which speaks and
believes a lot about faith, and it wasn't lost on me as a child. So
that night, before it was my turn to sign, I went into the men's room
of that old building. I remember the pipes running beneath the
twelve-foot high ceiling. I leaned my head against the damp, plaster
wall and wept, and asked Jesus to heal my voice by faith. Instantly,
my voice WAS healed. My mother told me later that I had sung like an
angel that night.

When 15, I was "saved" yet again, and baptized again as a Baptist
(which my parents had become). This episode of salvation was
especially poignant, as I can still remember hearing my father in a
discussion with another member of the Nazarene church after the
service one Sunday as I sat on the front pew listening, during which
he exclaimed, "I just can't believe this 'once saved, always saved'
business of the Baptists." I “surrendered to preach” at age 16 and
preached youth revivals, etc. I could always feel the "Holy Ghost" to
tears and the binding of my tongue, and religion was the most
important thing in my life, no matter which episode of salvation I
happened to have been baptized into at the time. Then in May of 1973,
I was baptized again, this time as a Mormon. I was referred to as
"golden" by all who knew me, beginning with the stake and other
missionaries who taught me. The Mormon church was entirely new to me
and seemed to have all the answers. How did it happen?

I had developed a list of questions I had about the Bible and
religious belief. I then met with pastors of every church I could, and
presented my list, asking them to respond. There were various answers
to each question, and they were often clearly in conflict with those
of other faiths in each case. At length, I decided that none of them
were true, because they could not answer all of the questions. The one
which elicited the most bizarre and diverse answers was, "What about
life on other worlds?" The answers revealed what I would term almost a
consensus of spiritual Copernicanism, meaning that the earth and its
gospel were at the center of all else. I wasn't a scientist then, but
I still rejected the reasonablenesss of that general concept. Brother
McDermott, my mathematics professor at Mt. San Antonio Jr. College in
Walnut, California, was the man primarily responsible for my
conversion. It was during the Viet Nam war, and Stanton Friedman, one
of the 10 physicists who served on the Congressional Investigating
Committee on UFOs came to the college for a presentation. The slides
he showed, the information he imparted during his talk, was so
influential, that I looked up at the stars when I left the campus that
evening, almost expecting to see a UFO. That's what added that
all-important question to my list, which no pastor of any faith I
interviewed could answer satisfactorily. Not long after that, Dr.
McDermott, who also served on the school board in that area, was
challenging the class, pointing out that the University of California
had graduated around 1000 sociologists in 1970, but there were jobs
for only about a hundred. He was lamenting the fact that so many
avoided the study of mathematics and the hard sciences. Something
about the way he spoke touched me, because he sounded like a preacher.
So after class, I approached him and asked,

"Are you a preacher, Dr. McDermott?"
"No, but I am active in my faith." he responded.
"What faith is that?"
"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints-the Mormons."

I was stunned. All I had ever heard about the Mormons was a bunch of
people with lots of wives that followed a prophet from Missouri to
Utah. How could such an obviously intelligent man belong to such a
church? Rather than ask an offensive question, I said something about
it would be interesting to read his Book of Mormon, and dropped the
subject. We walked to the parking lot together and I remember saying
that it was interesting that gods principal servants, beginning with
Abraham all seemed to have more than one wife as well.

The next class, he asked me to stay after the class ended, and when
the room was empty except for us, he presented me with a paperback
copy of the Book of Mormon, and a brochure which showed Jesus in the
air, with the western hemisphere on the left side of the page beneath
him and the eastern hemispher on the right side beneath him. Above the
Eastern hemisphere was a picture of the Bible, and above the western
hemisphere was a picture of the B/book of Mormon. He explained that
each was a record of Christ's dealings with the respective hemisphere.
I immediately recognized the symmetry, took them home and placed them
on the bookshelf and promptly forgot about them. Some weeks later,
after I had finished my rounds with my list of questions, I was at an
end. I had "felt" the spirit as long as I could remember. It was as
though it was just above and to the right of my head. That, I could
not deny. Yet everything else just didn't make sense. And no one could
answer my questions. I remember praying desperately by my bed, my face
pressed into the spread, in tears.

"I will give up everything I believe," I said to God, "If you will
just lead me to the truth."

As I rose, I remembered Dr. McDermott and the Book of Mormon he had
given me, so I went to the shelf to get it, but it was gone. My wife
had thrown it out. So I called him, and asked if I could come by that
Sunday evening and ask him some questions about his church. He was
more than agreeable, even anxious, to have me come by, so the time was
set.

That Sunday, I hit my homework early and finished the math and
chemistry in advance of the appointed time. I took my list of
questions and went to his home, where I was warmly welcomed by he and
his wife, who was also in attendance. I told him that I had been
searching for the truth, that I had questions no one in my church
(Baptist at the time, though I had been inactive for quite a while,
and upon returning and rereading the Bible, had come across issues
which constituted some of the questions) or any other church had
satisfactory answers to, and about my prayer, and the missing Book of
Mormon. He realized that I had come with a list of questions I wanted
answers to, and I handed it to him.

He smiled as he read the list, and said, "Is it okay if I answer the
last one first, 'What about life on other worlds?'"

"Sure;" I said, "That's the one that has given others the most trouble."

He rose and walked to the table, and picked up his scriptures, which I
noticed were very thick, and he opened them to the Pearl of Great
Price, and to the Book of Moses, and read to me God's words to Moses,
who had seen many worlds with life thereon and wanted to know about
them. I was shocked. He also had in-depth, highly developed responses
to all of the other questions on my list. My questions had been
answered, and that was all I had prayed for. My prayer had been
answered. I had asked, and I had received. I had seeked, and I had
found. I had knocked, and it had been opened unto me. I was baptized,
along with my wife at that time, not long after, in May of 1973.

Over the years I served in many bishoprics and held just about every
ward calling in the church, paid an honest tithe, whether it was $1600
or $16000, taught just about every class in the church, held many
stake callings, and was married in the temple twice; in the Los
Angeles temple five years into my first marriage of over nine years,
and in the Washington D.C. temple to my second wife of 23 years,
during which sons: Nephi, Teancum, Moroni, and Helaman, and daughters:
Chastity, Faith, Esperanza, and Mercedes were born. Three of my four
daughters are still LDS, two of them married in the temple. I was
active, not less active. And I was happy. I thought I had the answers,
and tried faithfully to influence others and bring them into the
church. I did. I remember my joy at baptizing the first black family
in the Miami stake following the revelation of about all worthy males,
which alleviated the growing stigma of excluding blacks from the
priesthood. I also spent over $200,000 directly or indirectly in my
quest to establish Book of Mormon archaeology and geography.

So, you ask, "How in the world did this happen?" This is how:

I obtained my BA degree in Latin American Studies from Tulane
university, with a specialization in precolumbian cultures and
languages, primarily the Maya. I took Hebrew as an elective at Tualne
for a reason: If the Maya were the Nephites of the Book of Mormon, we
would find elements of Hebrew in the Book of Mormon or the Chilam
Balams of the Colonial period Maya. I studied Egyptian hieroglyphs at
BYU for the same reason. I found only one occurrence of Egyptian, and
that wasn't in the inscriptions on Mayan monuments. In the writings of
Friar Diego de Landa, another famous book burner, the Egyptian
negative glyph occurs in what is called a Ma ... i frame in spoken
Yucatecan Maya: “Ma Ing 'kati,” meaning, “I do not want,” or “I do not
wish,” It is a stick man type of glyph, showing only an inverted "V"
for the shoulders and horizontally extended arms with fingers, meaning
no or not in both Egyptian and Yucatecan Maya, as reported by Landa.
That was it.
Was it worth the effort to learn a good deal of three languages
(Hebrew, Spoken Yucatecan Maya, and Middle Kingdom Egyptian
hieroglyphs just for that? In all humility, let me respond:
absolutely, because only then could I KNOW what I was talking about,
not merely be wishing, hoping, or speculating in a vacuum called,
faith.

I first studied Mayan civilization at the Univ of South Florida, where
I was a member of the Institute of Mayan Studies. I studied Egyptian
Hieroglyphs at BYU and Yucatecan Maya at Tulane, under Vicky Bricker,
beneath whose tutelege I translated the Codex of Calkini from
Yucatecan Maya into English (it was written in couplet form, a
discovery of the Bricker husband/wife team. [I like husband/wife
teams, like Will and Ariel Durant, for example. They don't always get
everything right, but talk about partners, companions, and soul mates!
That's what I would like to establish with the wife I am currently
searching for. I cannot imagine greater happiness and satisfaction
than being half of a husband-wife team bent on a quest for truth and
happiness, including frequent stops to smell the roses along the way!]

I attended seminars in Maya glyphs taught by Linda Schele at the Univ.
of Texas at Austin, and others, and followed projects and discoveries,
like the “hel” (ascension) glyph that resulted from the Tegucigalpa
project funded by the government of Honduras, in which Shele and other
glyph experts participated. Schele et al's recent book, "The Code of
Kings," demonstrates the incredible advances made during just the last
few decades.

I was a friend of Hugh Nibley, who personally encouraged me to focus
on New World studies and first made me aware of the Gates collection,
a third of which the Mormon church purchased for $40,000 from William
Gate's widow[There is an article about Gates in the Quarterly, which
will be available for you to read before too long]. Another third is
at my alma mater, Tulane, and another at Princeton. I also obtained a
second degree, a BS cum laude in Geology from Tulane, top in my class
of over 300 geologist wannabes in 1981. Again, I tell you this not to
make myself appear important, but to illustrate how seriously I took
my quest.

I obtained my Masters in Hydrogeology from Cal State, Stanislaus, the
first ever awarded by that institution, studying under Dr. Yasui,
department head at that time. I hold three US patents in environmental
remediation (cleanup) technology, two in biotechnology and one in
heavy metal extraction chemistry. I am the inventor of the patented
Bio-SpargeTM technology. Enough of my academic and professional
background. Someone who is envious of my accomplishments and/or
dislikes me because I am no longer a member of the church can attempt
to diminish the accomplishments I have enumerated, but the core mass
should be obvious to the unbiased. If you follow my blog, you will see
that mass substantially increase. I promise you that. I also promise
you that I will continue to be honest and sincere in my quest. Any
information I withhold from you will be because it is of a personal
nature and none of your business. Sorry.

As I became an archaeologist, conflicts between archaeology and
assertions made by the Book of Mormon, which I have studied
exhaustively, and also elements of church doctrine began to arise, not
all of which I could ignore or "sweep under the rug," as it is often
put. The primordial characteristic of my search for truth is never
being willing to knowingly deceive or lie to myself.

This conflicted situation worsened when I became a geologist as well.
One by one, the underpinnings of my faith began to collapse, much of
which had nothing whatsoever to do with either the Book of Mormon or
specific LDS doctrines or beliefs. They were much farther reaching and
very troubling to me. Another list of questions began to form.
Nevertheless, I did not turn away from the anticipated consequences of
continuing research. My intedisciplinary studies continued,
self-funded because from the days of the early church in Utah, the
Mormon church has officially distanced itself from attempts to define
BOM archaeology and geography, resulting in a syndrome like that which
would result if Hebrew university eschewed studies of Biblical
archaeology. If not rectified, or if unsuccessful, it will ultimately
lead to an event horizon. B.H. Roberts cautioned the brethren to avoid
any such attempts, due to what seemed insurmountable conflicts
apparent at the time between the geographical and historical claims of
the Book of Mormon and the archaeological record(“at the time” still
applies to date). The event horizon of which I speak is materializing.
You will understand this ongoing conflict-entirely internal to the
church-by reading the recent "By the Hand of Mormon," a well-written
pro-Mormon book.

Of late, Sorenson's (ludicrous) model (you can't hide the civilization
portrayed in the BOM within a small piece of real estate in what
appears to me to be an attempt, no doubt sincere, to escape academic
jeopardy) seems to be gaining mass and may become more openly espoused
by F.A.R.M.S as the church has begun to fear becoming primarily an
organization involved in exegesis of the Book of Mormon as a work of
precious literature, rather than viewing it as a revealed true
historical document, which requires a geographical context, such as we
have for the Bible. This is nothing against Sorenson personally. It
was he who was kind enough to correspond with me early on, advising me
that BYU really had no archaeology program of substance and suggesting
that I switch to antropology. I switched universities instead, as
Tulane has a very stron program which may be accessed either through a
degree in Anthropology, or a degree in Latin American Studies,
depending upon the focus desired.

As time went on, my research, not so much in BOM archaeology and
geography, but in other lines of totally different inquiry brought me
to the point of feeling hypocrisy. They were compelling me to shift
from organized religion entirely, get out of any of those boxes, and
use my Homo sapiens sapiens brain, wherever it came from, and however
it may have come to be, to stare into the abyss, and come back and
tell others what I found, or thought I found. Someone recently asked
me who I thought I was, questioning God. I replied with the foregoing
and added that I would rather stand outside the box and alone and use
that brain. But with this reservation: If there is an all powerful,
omniscient being who loves and cares for me, he will keep his promise.
Ask, seek, and knock. I shall. I thought he had answered them once
before, and I was in the trenches for 26 years when he answered them.

I was teaching Gospel Doctrine class at the time that this sense of
personal hypocrisy became most troublesome, and after class, some of
my friends would approach and say, “Now tell us what you really
think.” Genesis had come around again, and I was crestfallen that the
church still had not brought reality into the story of Adam. He
existed, but as we are informed by the much earlier Sumerian and
Babylonian clay tablets, an enormous number of which have been
discovered and/or translated during the past two decades. The biblical
account, which came much later, is not faithful to those originals.
The author(s) of the first ten chapters of Genesis did have access to
Babylonian copies of the Sumerian originals, but deliberately
corrupted the original sources and highly abridged the biblical
account. All of the records from which the biblical account was drawn
defined god as "gods." Authors of the biblical Genesis intentionally
omitted and perverted this truth (now documented historical fact) in
an effort to establish monotheism to further their own agenda and
promote their own interpretation of god. If you want a full translation of the 14 clay tablets from which the first ten chapters of Genesis were extracted, see, "The Lost Book of Enki," by Zechariah Sitchen, available from Amazon.com, and compare what the original Sumerian version says with what Genesis 1-10 says.

My problems increasingly became not just about my faith in the Book of
Mormon and the doctrines of the LDS church, but about organized
religion in general, Christian or otherwise. It would require a book
(which might eventually have to be written) or many, many forum
discussions to give you more than the cursory and somewhat pretentious
background I have graced (or disgraced) you with above. I hope it
hasn't been a complete waste of time.

So you, see, just because someone leaves the church doesn't mean they
have to cease to be a thinking person, even if they think “outside the
box” of organized religion, or that they must abandon research in
their fields of scientific inquiry, nor that the word, “Mormon” or
“LDS” must be stricken from their vocabulary and excluded from all
further inquiry and discussion, just in case certain Mormon leaders
have resorted to book banning by definition, referring to contrary
scholarship as “anti-Mormon,” as you have in your forum post. This
telltale return to Imprimatur is unfortunate, as are all attempts to
restrict individuals from “peering into the abyss,” as Stephen King
referred to it in his book, "On Writing," wherein he urges thinkers
and writers to peer into the abyss, then come back and report what we
found. This is healthy advice, viewed allegorically or within a
personal context. Making disparaging characterizations of those with
whom one disagrees (or secretly entertain odious intentions toward)
is, in my opinion, both intellectually corrupt and isolationist, not
to mention, unChrist-like, regardless of how innocent they may appear.
They tend to generate or perpetuate faith in theocracy; more
accurately, the low road of theocracy, which leads to Inquistion if
sufficient power is attained.

This is one of the principal reasons we must preserve and prefer
democratic institutions over theocratic institutions as a nation,
because they tie our hands when we venture upon persecution and the
Scarlet Letter. After all, the theocracy, regardless of the type, is
by definition supposed to be in the democracy, but not of it.
Therefore, it follows that it cannot be it.
Behaviors of the sort I refer to here are generally made by persons
who think they already have the answers, at least to the biggies.

I'll give you an example: When I was a teenage member of the Mabelvale
Missionary Baptist church, growing up in Mabelvale, a township
southwest of Little Rock, Arkansas at that time, I loved sister
Gilsau, a friend of my parents. That elderly woman knew the scriptures
back and forth, a true Bible thumper. When president Kennedy
challenged the nation's scientific establishment to put a man on the
Moon “by the end of this decade,” I asked sister Gilsau what she
thought about that the next time I rode my bike to her house to sit on
the front porch and discuss the gospel(sorry, but the Baptists lay
claim to it, too).

“Michael, if God had wanted Man on the Moon, he would have put him there!”

Okay.

Years later, when I brought my family on a vacation to visit my
parents, I went by sister Gilsau's for a chat. We had of course met
the president's challenge a few years earlier. While sitting with her,
I casually brought up her comment to me when I was a teenager, and
asked how she now felt about having held that belief back then.

“Michael,” she said, “you're so naive. Don't you know those Hollywood
people can make it look like we set down on the Moon?” Sheesh!

It might surprise you to know that in all churches to which I have
belonged, I have enjoyed the same spirit, met the same wonderful
members striving their best to live their beliefs, yet occasionally
encountered exceptionally bigoted, prejudiced, exclusionary, and
protectionist (Scarlet Letter) individuals as well; members who think
themselves exalted or beloved of God above their fellows and fellow
men. Such lamentable individuals are, to that extent, pompous,
arrognat Zoramites in a Book of Mormon sense.

My advice, my dear forum friend: Don't go there! It's a trap-the
box-for your mind. Keep your mind open and be ALWAYS willing to give
up any belief, or even an entire belief SYSTEM, if you discover
greater knowledge or truth. Avoid the disparaging use of words like
"apostate" when you disagree with others. Such characterizations have
been the behavioral fodder of inflexible religious zealots from time
immemorial to the Inquisition, and from the Inquisition on. If you
don't believe me, read the accounts of Copernicus and Galileo ("Oh, my
dear Kepler, why are you not here to see the learned professor of
astronomy at Padua refuse even to LOOK through my glass! What shouts
of laughter we should have at this glorious folly!").

Believe me, nothing has changed since then, merely the historical
context in which it now occurs, often recast in generous and
non-offensive terms; treat as anathema presumed church positions or
statements made by overzealous members tantamount to the spirit of the
Inquisition, lest you help bring back haunting memories of Governor
Boggs and Haun's Mill. We don't need any more Inquisitions and we
don't need any more exterminations like Haun's Mill. Remember, “Ask
not for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee.” [Hemingway]

By your creation of this forum and your apparently well-intentioned,
even gratuitous remarks, you have, in my opinion, the potential to
become one of the thinking individuals whom I respect. Try to be
intellectually honest, not bound by dogmatism, Zoromitism, or outright
hatefulness and diatribe, which surprisingly, is often a gutteral,
impulsive, and condemning reaction of otherwise sensible and dignified
individuals, including some Mormons. Make no attempt to avoid, but
rather to confront, seeming challenges to, or contradictions within,
your particular faith. Struggle not to dismiss, but to consider,
seeming nemeses. It is better to learn and understand than simply to
appeal to revelation, usually someone else's alleged revelation.

We can carry this farther. Do you really need a sociopathic,
genocidal, Inquisitorial, wrathful and vengeful god whose
anthropomorphic actions and prejudices, carefully reported in the
Bible, are beneath you? Do you really want to be an apologist for such
a rueful entity, actual or imagined? Would you hack open the belly of
the preganant woman next door and kill her and her baby? I thought we
didn't believe in killing unborn children, regardless of their skin
color or race. Oh, and you need to kill her pets and even her cow as
well, because she worships a different god (maybe her god would be
sickened by such atrocities).

If that statement shocks or disturbs you, then keep your mind open and
never stop introspective thinking, questioning, and continuous
learning.

As a reminder, my research blog is: GEOARCHAEOLOGY.blogspot.com. I
have recently created it for the purpose of posting the results of my
research in the past, and as a geoarchaeologist, past and future,
which are ongoing.

This forum reply was, and is, an exception to my policy of never
debating religion. I learned its futility in high school, when my
friend, Floyd, who played the trombone and sat near to me with my
French horn or baritone, suggested that I and my friend, Troy Smith
meet with him and his friend on Thursday evening each week to discuss,
not argue about, each other's churches. He and his friend were members
of the Church of Christ, and he was a very decent young man. We were
both around 17 at the time. He knew that Troy and I were devout
Baptists, and that we preached and bore testimony to inmates in the
Little Rock City jail occasionally. We began our discussions the
following Thursday. As the weeks passed, I noticed a disturbing
pattern which I have witnessed many times since in my life. Regardless
of who was speaking or expounding the scriptures in an attempt to move
the other in their church's direction, the other wasn't listening as a
person would who was open-minded and willing to seriously consider.
The ones listening were busily thinking about how to counter whatever
point was being made so that when it was their turn to speak, they
could kick the ball down field toward their goal; mere oneupmanship.

That was the night I suggested we just remain friends and keep
religion out of our friendship. It was good advice then. It is good
advice now. That is why church leaders counsel, I believe, members to
have non-mormon friends and relationships, not for the sole purpose of
converting them, but to be respectful members of their community who
do not venture upon persecution of those of different beliefs and/or
lifestyles. We do live in a democracy, and we must all act like it.

Not everyone will accede to that arrangement. When I was attending
Tulane, had completed my archeology degree, and was well into my
geology program, my (now ex) wife and I lived in Rosen House married
student housing. She had become a good friend of a woman who just
happened to do laundry downstairs in the laundromat at the same time
she did. Eventually, her friend invited us to dinner. They were a
gracious couple during dinner, but afterward, as our wives talked in
the kitchen, the husband invited me into the living room and began a
barrage of questions. He knew I was nearing graduation as a geologist
and he knew that I was already an archaeologist. It soon became
apparent that he believed the Genesis account literally, and he
asserted that God had created the Earth in six days, and I mean six
days of 24-hours (they're still out there, folks).

I told him that his lack of scientific training was what enabled him
to adhere to such an impossible notion and that I knew of a certainty
that it was not true. Offended, he asked how I could make that
statement in such a matter-of-fact manner, and said faith was all you
needed, not knowledge of geology. I told him the story of a friend I
had made during a Naval Reserve training program in Chicago many years
before. One night, we were standing on one of the bridges over the
river, having paused to look up at the stars.

“Stars are diamonds,” he said. I assumed he was speaking rhetorically
or just clowning. I don't remember what I said, but whatever it was
evoked a repetition of the claim.

“Stars aren't diamonds, and you know it. Stop clowning around.” No, we
hadn't been drinking at the time.

He suddenly became offended, and I soon realized that this guy was as
ignorant as a stick. He really DID believe that stars were diamonds!
Freaked me out! I began discussing some basic scientific facts, trying
to build up to a point where his juvenile belief could be supplanted
by some degree of understanding. But the more I tried, the more I
realized there was nothing there to build on; nothing. Plus, he became
very angry and his final retort was,

“You don't know they're not diamonds. You haven't climbed up and touched one!”

Be careful who you pick for friends.

My story silenced the husband of my wife's friend for the moment, but
after that day, every time he spotted me, he would try to involve me
in an argument about a six day creation. I was seeing stars by now, of
course. The elevators in Rosen House were some of the worst,
frequently getting stuck. One afternoon, he and I happened to get on
the same elevator at the same time, because he saw me getting on and
quickly jumped in before the door closed (For real; I kid you not).
And, as luck, or un-luck, would have it, the elevator picked that time
to jam! Here I was, trapped in an elevator with this guy, and he
immediately started up again. I decided I was going to have to take
him on.

“Do you see this?” I asked, showing him the 10-power hand lens we
geologists often wear on a leather field boot string as a necklace,
because it provides a quick closeup of the crystal structure of a
rock, fossil fragments, etc. I explained what it was for.

“So?” he asked.

“I was in southern Alabama once, and stopped at a road cut through a
deposit of what looked like dirty sand. As I looked at some of the
grains with my hand lens, I noticed that the sand wasn't dirty; it was
a mixture of clean, quartz grains and mineralized poop from intertidal
zone gastropods. With a more powerful microscopic lens, we can
actually often identify the species of gastropod just by observing the
constriction marks on the tiny fossilized turds. The organic material
reacts with the magnesium in ocean water and forms an extremely hard
mineral as resistant to erosion and solution as quartz grains. The
mixture of mineralized coprolites and quartz grains together looked
like dirty sand to the naked eye.”

“What's your point?” he asked, probably thinking I was trying to use
up the time in the elevator. We were already sitting on the floor by
this time.

“My point is that, as I observed the layers in that formation, I
spotted occasional crab claws and tiny bivalve shells, all lying
perfectly horizontal where the particular critter had died. The
formation was over thirty feet thick. It would have taken hundreds,
perhaps thousands, of years for a deposit of that type, a mixture of
eroding quartz and fossilized gastropod excrement, to create that
former intertidal zone deposit, now well inland. Further, that
formation sits atop many others of equal or greater thickness. It is
physically impossible for it to have been created quickly.”

Like the Stars-are-diamonds fellow, he became red-faced and retorted
almost in a yell:

“You don't know that! God could have rained all of that sand in one day!”

“Okay,” I admitted for the sake of argument, “But did he rain the poop
with it? What kind of a deceiving huckster do you think it is you're
worshiping?"

Fortunately, they managed to get the elevator door open about that
time, and I was relieved. One good thing came from the encounter; he
never bothered me again.

The truly honest in heart need have no fear of knowledge, nor of
asking the big questions. The fearful cringe upon HEARING them asked.
Moreover, knowledge trumps faith, as any number of speakers in
conference talks or at college graduation ceremonies have repeated
again and again. Faith is easy for the relatively unlearned of any and
all faiths and denominations, because facts don't get in the way. They
would rather get rid of anything that threatens their ignorance.

A good example is the religious mob of book burners who destroyed the
library of Alexandria, setting civilization back perhaps a thousand
years; other examples are those who revel in Black lists, Imprimaturs,
and censure.

Here's a final wrench to throw into the works: Imagine how surprised
they would be if they passed through the veil of death, thinking they
had done (their) god service, only to discover a heavy killick of
karma suspended around their necks, and that they're going to have to
go back and try it all over again until they get it right!

It gives one pause to consider how differently we might approach
knowledge and education as a society if we believed that the world we
left was the world we would find.

Regards, Michael M. Hobby
11/10/08