Mike Ash

Letters to a Former Missionary Companion – Letter 5

September 16, 2014 by Mike Ash

The following series of articles is a fictional dialogue between Shane and Doug, two former missionary companions many years after their missions. Shane writes to his friend Doug who has posted comments about his on-going faith crisis on Facebook. The characters are fictionalized composites of members who have faced these same dilemmas but the issues are based on very real problems which have caused some to stumble. Likewise, the responding arguments are based on the author’s own personal engagement with these same concerns as well as his discussion of these issues with other members who have struggled. (By Michael R. Ash, author of Shaken Faith Syndrome: Strengthening One’s Testimony in the Face of Criticism and Doubt, and Of Faith and Reason: 80 Evidences Supporting the Prophet Joseph Smith, and Director of Media Products for FairMormon.)

Dear Doug,

I haven’t heard from you since my last letter discussing Joseph Smith’s hesitancy to talk about his First Vision. I hope all is well. As promised, this letter hopes to address your concerns with the fact that Joseph wrote or dictated various accounts of the First Vision. From your previous letter it appears that you were surprised to find out that there were variant renditions of the vision. You quoted, in fact, one critic who claims that the Church has tried to “cover up” the fact that these differing accounts exist. The truth is, Doug, that the various versions have actually been discussed in the official Church magazines such as the Improvement Era in 1970 and again in the Ensign in 1985 and 1996.

LDS scholars have known about the different versions for many years and the Church has attempt to publicly acknowledge and discuss those versions for more than forty years—long before there was the Internet, which, as critics often claim, is the impetus which has “exposed” these supposed difficulties.

The real concern isn’t about “covering up” the fact that these different accounts exist, but rather what we make of the fact—acknowledged for decades by believing LDS scholars—that there are discrepancies between the accounts. This particular issue is one that really had no impact on me during my own faith-crisis. I remember having read one of the Ensign articles that discussed the different accounts of the First Vision so it didn’t catch me off guard when I read about it in anti-LDS literature.

I know the point of the critics is that Joseph Smith supposedly evolved his story as he got older—which suggests that the story is made-up—but I never found this argument to be that impressive. Who doesn’t tell about an event different at different stages in one’s life or depending on the listening audience?

When I was about 10 my 8 year-old little brother got out the ladder and climbed on the roof in the hopes of “parachuting” off with a bed sheet. The sheet got stuck on the roof antenna and he dangled precariously over the ledge of a two-story drop. My mom came to the rescue, climbed the ladder and pulled him in back to the roof. It was a fun story I told for many years about my crazy little brother. It wasn’t until I was in college that I discovered that my mom was deathly afraid of heights. I never knew it before. My mom told how she really struggled to get up on the roof and prayed for strength. She worried that if she ran to get a neighbor or called the fire department, the sheet might rip and my brother would fall to the ground, so she knew she had to move fast.

When I tell the story to my own kids the event is the same, but the story and emphasis I tell is different than the way I told the story in my pre-college years. Changing the details in hindsight doesn’t mean I’ve fabricated the story, I just know more now than I did then so my story includes the wisdom that has been added.

Most of the so-called “discrepancies” between the various accounts are of little importance and can easily be resolved by additional insight that Joseph received following the vision as well as the audience to whom the accounts were written. I’ll bet you don’t tell the First Vision story exactly the same—with every nuance and emphasis—when you talk to your High Priest group as you did when you were telling an investigator while we were on our missions.

The three biggest potential problems with the differing accounts are: 1) Joseph’s age is inconsistent in the differing accounts: 2) according to many critics there was no 1820 revival (which Joseph claimed was the reason he sought the Lord in prayer), and: 3) in the first known record (1832) Joseph only mentioned seeing Christ rather than seeing both the Father and the Son. So let’s look three issues.

Joseph’s Age at the First Vision

From 1828 to 1831 Joseph began collecting, compiling, and attempting to preserve Church documents—the first of which was his revelations. Later he began gathering other documents such as minute books. By 1832 he began documenting the details of his personal life and history. This 1832 record was penned primarily by Joseph himself, although some parts were written by Joseph’s scribe Fredrick G. Williams. Although the 1832 history was an unpolished draft and was never printed, it contains the earliest known account of Joseph’s First Vision.

This 1832 account claims that Joseph was in his sixteenth year when he experienced the vision (this would mean that he was 15 years old—in our first year of life we are less than 1 year old, in our second year of life we are 1 year old, etc.). In the official 1838 account, however, Joseph says that the vision happened in his fifteenth year (or when he was 14 years old). Why the discrepancy?

First, the “sixteenth” year in the 1832 account is not in Joseph’s handwriting but in Williams handwriting and is inserted between two normal lines of text. Obviously, Joseph’s age was added after Joseph first penned the account. It’s possible that Williams got the age wrong, but it’s also possible that Joseph Smith couldn’t immediately remember the year when the theophany took place.

I know I’ve had times when memory has failed me. Without my wife’s help I can’t accurately remember which year we first went to Disneyland, when I experienced my first kiss, or when my tent got flooded at Boy Scout camp. When Joseph initially experienced the First Vision he had no idea that this was the first in a series of events that would ultimately lead to the restoration. That connection wouldn’t be made until years later when Joseph could look back on the past with the benefit of hindsight. Under such circumstances he may not have made a mental note regarding the year or month when the vision occurred, and years later he would have been forced to calculate or estimate backwards in order to recover the correct date—the same as I have done on numerous occasions.

Joseph’s recital of his childhood memories indicate that he was just like the rest of us when it came to recalling things from our past. The further back in the past, the more likely he was to estimate his age with qualifiers such as “about.” In fact, in his official (and published) 1838 history he said that his brother Alvin died in 1824. Four years later, however, he discovered that he was mistaken and he corrected the history to reflect the correct year of Alvin’s death at 1823.

No 1820 Revival

A number of critics have argued (and you cited some of these in your previous letter) that, contrary to Joseph’s 1838 First Vision recital, there was no religious revival in Palmyra in 1820. First, it’s important to point out that Joseph didn’t claim there was an 1820 “revival” but that there was an “unusual excitement on the subject of religion” in the vicinity preceding his plea for the Lord’s guidance. The fact is, however, that newspaper articles, letters, and other writings by non-Mormons of the day, support exactly what Joseph Smith claimed. There were a number of religious camp meetings and revivals in the area surrounding the Smith’s home during, and just prior to, 1820. The critics are flat our wrong in their argument—which is demonstrated by current research and documentation.

One Personage Instead of Two

As you note in your previous email, the critics claim that the story of the First Vision evolved into a more complicated tale as time passed by. Prior to 1835, they argue, Joseph claimed to have only seen one personage in his vision (unlike the appearance of the Father and the Son which we read about in the 1835 account).

Joseph wrote his 1832 account as an unpolished and unpublished brief personal biography in which the focus of the First Vision recital was his personal standing before the Lord. The 1835 account was transcribed by Joseph’s scribe Warren Parish when Joseph recounted the experience to a non-Mormon visitor. In this account Joseph shared the detail that both the Father and Son appeared in his vision.

When we examine the letters and journals of those who knew Joseph prior to 1835 we find that as early as 1832 some members were aware that Joseph was visited by two personages in his First Vision. The fact that Joseph didn’t mention the Father and the Son in his rough 1832 account doesn’t indicate that he made up the story, but rather than the focus of recital was different than the 1835 account in which he shared a more detail with a non-member who was curious about the events leading up to the Restoration.

The fact of the matter is, that all of Joseph’s accounts of the First Vision are harmonious on the important points—Joseph’s disillusionment with the churches of his day, his search for religious truth, his prayer for guidance, the fact that God answer’s prayers, and the appearance of deity in response to his supplication.

While Joseph may not have initially understood the worldwide significance of his First Vision, in time he was able to see that the hand of God was already in play from his early childhood, through his adolescent years, and into adulthood as the Lord prepared him to become an instrument in the Restoration of Christ’s Church on Earth.

Your friend,

Shane

Letters to a Former Missionary Companion – Letter 1

Letters to a Former Missionary Companion – Letter 2

Letters to a Former Missionary Companion – Letter 3

Letters to a Former Missionary Companion – Letter 4

August 18, 2014 by Mike Ash

Dear Doug,

I received your letter with your concerns about Joseph Smith and the beginnings of Mormonism. I think this is a good place to continue our discussion. Before we get into his translating the Book of Mormon, why don’t we examine your uneasiness about Joseph Smith’s First Vision?

You wrote, “Apparently no one–––including Joseph Smith’s family–––had ever heard of the First Vision until a dozen years after it supposedly happened.” Your claim is obviously based on the fact that the earliest known record we have of the vision is dated to 1832 whereas the vision took place in 1820.

It’s important first to note that Joseph didn’t call it the “First Vision,” but rather a visitation of angels. Because Joseph had several visions in his lifetime, we are the ones who define his initial visitation with God and Jesus Christ as the “First Vision.”

As a young teenager Joseph had no idea that his revelation would begin a process that eventually lead to the restoration of more scripture and the Lord’s Church. Like other people in his day who also had experienced visions of Christ, his initial visitation would have been a very personal experience–––it was a message of redemption and forgiveness. As a personal experience it’s unlikely that he felt a need to share it with others–––in fact he was probably reluctant to talk about it. Several years later, when he was visited by Moroni, Joseph was also silent about the experience until Moroni explicitly commanded him to tell his father.

Joseph seems to have confided some of the details of his First Vision to a local minister who reacted negatively to Joseph’s retelling. Growing up I used to think that the preacher reacted negatively to Joseph’s story because of its strangeness, but in reality the minister most likely reproached the teenager because of story’s familiarity. A number of people who were caught up in the surrounding revivals had experienced visions. The minister was obviously aware of these other visionary claims and was likewise trying to set Joseph straight on the matter when he told him that such things had ceased.

The counsel, coming from a respected minister–––a minister whom Joseph must have trusted at least to some degree in order to confide in him the experience of the visitation–––would probably have caused Joseph some concern about sharing the story with others.

There is evidence, however, that Joseph did share the information with at least some caution. Both Joseph and his mother Lucy recalled that Joseph was persecuted by others who had heard about his visionary experience. One Presbyterian woman who grew up in the Smith’s neighborhood remembered hearing that Joseph has supposedly experienced a vision. The woman’s father told her that Joseph’s vision was likely the sweet dream of a pure-minded boy. A year before Joseph first recorded the vision, his hometown paper made mention that Joseph claimed to have frequently seen God.

Not long after the Church was officially restored in 1830 Joseph received revelation that emphasized the importance of keeping records, so in 1832 he dictated the basic contents of his First Vision to his scribe Frederick G. Williams (a portion of this record is in Joseph’s own handwriting). The 1832 account was a rough draft and was never published by the prophet. Although twelve years had passed since the First Vision, Joseph still explained it as an incident of personal conversion. The personal significance of the vision still overshadowed its role in the overall restoration.

So while it’s true that most early members were probably unaware of the First Vision, we can see that to Joseph the vision was initially understood as more personal than applicable to his future calling, and that there were reasons for his reluctance in sharing his vision with others. The fact that others in Joseph’s early vicinity had heard rumors of his visionary experience, however, supports the position that the visitation took place long before Joseph committed the story to paper.

As soon as I get a chance, I’ll send another letter reviewing the differences between the various First Vision accounts.

Your friend,

Shane

Letters to a Former Missionary Companion – Letter 1

Letters to a Former Missionary Companion – Letter 2

Letters to a Former Missionary Companion – Letter 3

For more information on the First Vision, please visit the FairMormon Wiki.

Letters to a Former Missionary Companion – Letter 3

July 14, 2014 by Mike Ash

The following series of articles is a fictional dialogue between Shane and Doug, two former missionary companions many years after their missions. Shane writes to his friend Doug who has posted comments about his on-going faith crisis on Facebook. The characters are fictionalized composites of members who have faced these same dilemmas but the issues are based on very real problems which have caused some to stumble. Likewise, the responding arguments are based on the author’s own personal engagement with these same concerns as well as his discussion of these issues with other members who have struggled. (By Michael R. Ash, author of Shaken Faith Syndrome: Strengthening One’s Testimony in the Face of Criticism and Doubt, andOf Faith and Reason: 80 Evidences Supporting the Prophet Joseph Smith, and Director of Media Products for FairMormon.)

Dear Doug,

As I’ve read through your list of faith-based concerns, I see that you frequently take issue with the scriptures and modern-day prophets as not always teaching the “truth.” Like you, and possibly many members in the Church, I tacitly accepted the position that prophets (both modern and ancient) were almost like demi-gods—that basically they could do no wrong nor say anything that wasn’t the absolute truth. I thought I learned this in Church, Seminary, and Institute. In hindsight, however, I don’t think that was really what I was taught (at least not by all of my instructors and leaders). Looking back, I wonder if I came to such assumptions because of my own expectations and the fact that the topic of prophetic fallibility was never directly addressed.

Unfortunately, by not questioning my own assumptions I took it for granted that the scriptures and the words of the prophets were inerrant. This assumption proved to be disastrous when I encountered LDS-critical material. The most powerful lesson I learned as I studied my way back into the Church (by finding answers to those claims that plugged my spiritual ears) was that my initial approach to the scriptures and prophets was not only naïve but is not the official position of the Church.

The two best things that came from my faith crisis were: 1) an increased strength in the firmness of my own faith (almost as if I had gone through the refiner’s fire), and 2) a more realistic appreciation for modern-day and ancient prophets. I’m almost embarrassed to say that up until my faith crisis I read the scriptures as if they were “true” fairy tales. What do I mean by that? Well the words were “true” because they touched my soul. I knew (and I still know) that they are true because when I read them I feel more than emotion—I feel the presence of a spiritual witnesses that seems to flow both peace and other-worldly intelligence into my heart and mind. There is nothing else like it (and I hope we can discuss this feeling more directly in a future letter).

But in another ironic way, reading the scriptures was almost like reading fairy tales. While I read about scriptural characters who engaged in struggles of their own, it was almost as if they were on another planet. Looking back, I unintentionally viewed past prophets (and their followers) from a superficial one-dimensional perspective. Those stupid Israelites, I thought, they saw all these wonderful miracles from Moses and yet they still fashioned a golden calf? How could anyone be so dumb?For the most part, past prophets were able to get out of tough situations simply by commanding water to come from a rock, or the walls of an enemy’s fortress to come tumbling down, or by causing the sun to stand still, or by lying down with friendly lions which didn’t eat prophets. Sure there were exceptions to these easy escapes (and of course Christ died a painful death to atone for our sins) but in many ways the scriptures—which I believed were true because I had received a spiritual witness that they are true— seemed like fairy tales of another world and didn’t really relate in any normal way to the world in which I live.

I understood that past prophets lived in a world that was different than our twenty-first century world. I knew they didn’t have electricity, airplanes, or iPads, but I guess I envisioned them as a technologically backward group that otherwise could have fit right in with the members of my own ward (other than the fact that they seemed to see these fantastic miracles on an almost daily basis).

As I explained in my first letter, it wasn’t until I began my personal studies (beginning with the writings of Hugh Nibley) that the characters in the scriptures (and eventually the characters of the Restoration) took on real human form. It wasn’t until I made this obvious but somehow missed connection that I began to understand scripture and revelation and how it pertains to prophets.

You see Doug, Adam, Moses, Isaiah, Mormon, Peter, Alma, and to some extent Jesus, were just like you and me. I’ve had undeniable personal revelation. Now I admit there was a time when I was struggling that I began to look for ways to argue away past revelatory experiences. In other words, I tried to find logical emotional and psychological explanations for how I was affected by revelation—ways that didn’t need to involve the supernatural. I spent enough time in my college psychology classes to know that we humans are great at convincing ourselves that things are real even if they aren’t, and that our brains can trick us and can even create real emotive responses to fake stimuli. Even though I knew all of this—all of the psychological and biological explanations that seemed to undermine an acceptance of the supernatural—I was never really able to completely push aside my spiritual experiences. While my brain could find excuses, my heart—my soul—told me that there was something more going on; that something tasted good and sweet and filled me in ways that the intellectual arguments could not.

My own personal revelations were not always—if ever—perfect. I’ve always been aware that they came to me, an imperfect vessel, in ways that required me to think them through in light of the things I already knew. While I’ve had a few instances of a clear loud voice, most of my revelatory experiences have been of the still small voice kind. And like listening to a still small human voice, it’s sometimes difficult to hear what’s being said because of ambient noise.

It was during my liberation from my faith crisis that I realized that prophets undoubtedly received revelation just like I received revelation. Sure there were the occasional big revelations like the First Vision, the appearance of the Resurrected Christ, or Alma (the younger) and Saul’s conversion stories, but I think that the typical prophetic revelations came to the mind and hearts of the prophets just like they came to me—“through a glass darkly,” as Paul said. Revelation for prophets works like revelation to each us; we get bits and pieces of direction, inspiration, and insight, but we have to typically figure out how to understand and define this information in the context of what we know. The primary difference between a prophet’s revelations and my revelations are the scope or sphere of stewardship. While I can receive revelation for myself or family (or my ward when I was a bishop), a prophet can receive revelation for all mankind during the prophet’s tenure.

The fact that we both receive revelation in like manner, however, pretty much guarantees that, at times, Heavenly Father doesn’t always reveal answers on issues that aren’t pertinent to our salvation or even in a timeline we’d prefer on issues that are pertinent (or “expedient” as we read in D&C 88:64). The contents of my brain don’t get magically replaced with all of God’s wisdom and knowledge when I receive revelation, so we shouldn’t expect this of our prophets. They—like us—are still going to make incorrect assumptions, wrong interpretations, and mistakes. President Uchtdorf acknowledged this very fact in a recent General Conference address.

The scriptures record the stories of people who—although inspired by God—still had to engage real world problems from within a context of ancient societies. There is no escaping the fact that we (and prophets) will naturally try to understand new revelation in the context of our own experiences, cultural, etc. As the Lord told Joseph Smith,

Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding (D&C 1:24).

“Language” includes more than words. It includes the context of those words according to the worldview of the person listening/writing as well as those who hear/read those words. In other words (no pun intended), “languages” are expressions of thoughts according to the context of one’s environments. Old Testament, New Testament, and Book of Mormon cultures had a different “language” (both in words and ideas) than we have today. So did the people of Joseph’s Smith generation. Undoubtedly, future generations will be able to correct our misconceptions and false assumptions that resulted from our weak language or understanding of the scriptures or history.

Once we understand this important point, we can recognize that not everything in the scriptures is based on scientific fact, on fully accurate history, or on a complete understanding of God’s directives. As members we need to learn to be open to new and better understanding of not only God’s Word but of science, history, and the world in which the scriptures were recorded.

So when we read about the angry and seemingly vindictive God of the Old Testament, we have to recognize that many of the books of the Old Testament are almost certainly based on a compilation of oral traditions—influenced by the culture of the times—which were put into writing many centuries after the events transpired. While some might argue that this would make the Old Testament a work of fiction, I woulddisagree. What such a position proposes is that God inspired the record-keepers of the Old Testament to record important spiritual messages so they could be used as symbols and archetypes by future generations. The general messages related in the scriptures are God-inspired, but the stories in which they are framed may rely on the imprecision of oral traditions rather than detailed factual history.

My great-grandfather fought in World War I. He never kept a journal and never wrote down his war experiences but he did share some of those experiences with his wife and children. One of his sons (my grandfather) kept those stories alive by sharing them with his son (my father) who shared them with me. Chances are that if my great-grandfather had recorded his wartime encounters with a Go-Pro video camera mounted to his helmet, the events would probably be different than the stories I know from the oral tradition. It’s human nature for the mind to focus on some aspects of an event, while ignoring other aspects. It’s human nature to emphasize and embellish, or to tell past events in light of additional knowledge, wisdom, or hindsight that comes years after the events.

The fact that a video recording of my great-grandfather’s war history would be different than the oral retelling of his history would not mitigate the historicity of World War I, that he was sent overseas to fight in that war, that he saw several of his friends die, that he had to kill other men in combat, or that a wound to his left foot caused him to limp in pain for the rest of his life.

If a movie were made about his life, the main character would represent a real person and real events but would undoubtedly also contain artistic embellishments.In today’s book market we have the genre of “historical fiction”—such as the popular LDS The Work and the Glory book series. Another genre of fiction is the “non-fiction novel” which describes real events and real people but incorporates fictitious conversations and fictitious story-telling techniques to relate the tale.

In Hollywood there are movies based on actual events as well as movies “inspired” by actual events. Inspired doesn’t mean that the story is historically accurate or even factual, but that the story’s theme is based on something that actually happened. The award-winning movie and historical drama, The Butler, for example, isn’t historically accurate. While the primary character (Cecil Gaines) is fictional, the concept of a black White House butler who served for many years and had close relationships with several presidents is based on a very real man (Eugene Allen).

It’s almost certain that those who wrote the scriptures (especially the Old Testament) took similar paths to persevering or recording important elements of their faith. Past generations didn’t look at historical accuracy in the same light we do in modern times. Modern historians are primarily concerned with representing the past wie es eigentlich gewesen, or “as it really was” (to use the phrase of the important 19th century German historian Leopold von Ranke). But this mentality when approaching history is relatively modern, and simply wasn’t an assumption widely shared by ancient authors. For example, the great Greek and Roman historians and authors felt it was entirely within their prerogative to invent dialogue or speeches for their subjects to further a desired narrative or maintain a certain characterization.

That being the case, it’s important to remember that there was nothing inherently wrong with this type of storytelling. The importance of the tale was to teach a principle or morale, while historical accuracy took a back seat. God’s work isn’t furthered by the precise historical accuracy of an event so much as it is furthered by the way scripture study can open the heavens for our own personal revelations and testimony of the divine.

I believe that Old Testament prophets received revelation for the direction of the House of Israel, that Jesus was the Son of God, walked the earth, preformed miracles, and was crucified for the sins of the world. Likewise I believe that a group of early Americans (known to us today as Nephites, Lamanites, and Jaredites) also had real interactions with God and that about 2000 years ago some of them witnessed the resurrected Christ who blessed them and taught them eternal doctrines.

Despite my testimony of these things I do think it’s important to recognize that the scriptures—although God-inspired—were recorded by humans with all the frailties that accompany the human mind and memory. Therefore, not every word written in the scriptures represents the way God would behave, what He would teach, or what could have been recorded on a Go-Pro if it had been available. It is thus important to use critical thinking skills when approaching the scriptures as much as it is important to be sensitive to the whispers of the Spirit. When we approach the scriptures with a balance of faith and reason, we can probe questions such as how to discern truths embedded in both historical and non-historical parts of the scriptures and how to avoid misreading ancient scripture through our modern cultural or linguistic lenses.

With this preface on the Word of God, in my next letters I hope we can discuss some of your particular concerns about the scriptures.

Letters to a Former Missionary Companion – Letter 1

Letters to a Former Missionary Companion – Letter 2

May 23, 2014 by Mike Ash

Dear Doug,

I’m glad to hear that you received my previous letter and have thought about some of the things I mentioned. I can certainly appreciate how overwhelming this can be. You are getting different information from different sources and it’s difficult to know what information (or really which conclusions based on the information) is reliable. The turmoil you are engaging will eventually drive you to seek relief—most likely by choosing one side or the other. Since I’ve been there myself, I hope that I can show you how I found this relief and strengthened my testimony.

In my last letter I explained how I discovered that the Church was not involved in a “cover up” regarding the truth–––and especially the truth of early Mormon history. I mentioned that my studies have shown that many of these things have been discussed in previous official LDS publications as well as publications officially associated with the Church. In response to your query about where you can find such pro-LDS discussions, let me offer a few sources. A 1993 Ensign article by Russell M. Nelson (“A Treasured Testament”) mentions Joseph Smith’s use of a stone in a hat to translate the Book of Mormon. The Kinderhook Plates were addressed in an Ensign article in 1981. Joseph’s revelation about plural marriage was discussed in the Sunday School manuals in 1979 (and that manual was used for many years) and again in 1986 (which, again, was utilized for many years). The changes and revisions made to the Book of Commandments and early editions of the Doctrine and Covenants have been addressed in Ensign articles published in 1984, 1985, 2009, and 2013. The various accounts of Joseph Smith’s First Vision were examined in the Ensign in 1985 and again in 1996. Joseph’s treasure digging days were discussed in 1984 in a series of articles in BYU’s own BYU Studies. Many of the tougher issues have also been discussed in the earlier FARMS Review (mentioned in my previous letter)—a group that is officially under BYU’s umbrella (currently known as the Maxwell Institute).

You ask, “Why aren’t these things discussed in Church? Why should someone have to be a scholar and read the FARMS Review to find discussions on these topics? Why can’t we discuss them in Sunday School?” Those are good questions, Doug, and questions I’ve contemplatedmyself. Think about it though. We’ve both taught Gospel Doctrine classes, and if your priesthood quorums are anything like mine, do you really think these topics are the best way to spend two thirds of our three-hour block? When I go to Church I want to be spiritually renewed. I want to hear things that will lift my soul, to help me contemplate areas in my life I need to change, to feel fed as I contemplate Christ’s sacrifice, atonement, and the goodness of God. I want help in overcoming my weaknesses. I want spiritual enlightenment of how I can be a better father and husband, and to feel the peace that comes when I know I’ve recommitted myself to the Savior.

As a universal Church, the correlation of materials and teachings is aimed at harmonizing lessons and instructions and to accommodate the tender new member with basic Gospel principals—those teachings that affect our relationships with God and fellow brothers and sisters. Thousands of virtually untrained volunteers, with varying degrees of gospel and historical knowledge and education (or lack thereof) attempt to bring the Spirit into the classroom so that class members can be spiritually edified. While some Gospel Doctrine teachers may be knowledgeable enough to share detailed historical information (Dad could have), the manuals generally give basic historical outlines that specifically relate to lessons focusing on one or more gospel principles and how to apply those principals in the lives of members. In short, Church is a place for worship, spiritual edification, and enlightenment, not for in-depth historical discussion.

That’s why I used to think that my Dad was really just pursuing fluff in his spare time. The historical, scientific, and scholarly things don’t really matter in the end. In the end, it’s about relationships. Relationships with your parents, children, and spouse; relationships with those who are in need, as well as your enemies.Most importantly, your relationship with Heavenly Father and His Son. None of the secular stuff will secure those relationships.

Having said this however, I know only too well from firsthand experience that my relationship with Heavenly Father took a hit when I began struggling with critical arguments. How ironic, right? The secular stuff cannot create those relationships, but they can hinder those relationships. Conversely, I’ve found that some secular information can strengthen those relationships by giving them an environment wherein the testimony can grow. In Matthew13 we find the parable of the sower. In that parable the seed (the Word) grew or died depending on the soil (which allowed the seed to take root or not) as well as well as if it was nurtured or killed off by thorns. So likewise with a testimony: the Word of God may or may not take root and may or not may not flourish depending on if it is nurtured or chocked off by thorns. Our relationship with the divine needs to be nurtured spiritually, and for some people intellectually. A lack of spiritual and/or intellectual nourishment can stunt or kill growth. The thorns, thistles, and weeds–––the challenges to our testimony–––can kill our spiritual growth. When these weeds appear there is a need to do some gardening and weed pulling. While some intellectual arguments can cause a testimony to wither and die, other intellectual arguments can pull those weeds and allow growth to take place.

Many years ago the Church didn’t need to discuss the difficult issues. The events happened and the Church moved on. In the context of the day, histories were written as evangelizations of movements–––political or religious. Strict accuracy was less important than retelling events in heroic fashion. This wasn’t limited to Mormons but was the typical style of most historical biographies. Subsequent histories drew upon earlier histories. The more critical details of the events weren’t so much buried under the rug as they were all but forgotten (mentioned only in scholarly literature).

For the average member, there was no need for Sunday lessons to address the fuller historical accounts–––which required greater historical understanding for context and background. This would have been a waste of valuable (and limited) time which was better utilized for perfecting the Saints. The Internet, however, has brought these issues to the forefront among new generations that aren’t always familiar with the past events or issues, and I can guarantee the Church is noticing the problem and is finding ways to address them. Policies and procedures change according to changing needs. Not every generation needs an Ark. In past times bishops didn’t need much in the way of policies on pornography–—sure there were always a few guys that read girlie magazines, but because of the pervasiveness of Internet porn new policies and procedures have been established. The Church is currently addressing many of the historical issues on the LDS.org website and we will likely see more open discussion in future Sunday School classes—not because it was purposely covered up in the past, but simply because in previous years there was no immediate need to address the issues. Now there is.

The more we (as in the World) learn, the more answers we’ll have on some things and the more questions will be raised for other things. The great thing about a living Church is we have not only the ability to receive new revelation as new questions arise, but also to receive inspiration for changing circumstances. Lastly, we Latter-day Saints don’t believe that all truth is contained within the walls of the Chapel. We acknowledge and welcome the discoveries of science and secular scholarship. While such secular findings may present temporary speed bumps or unseat erroneous traditions among the faithful (both within the Church as well as among the members of other denominations), we can welcome truth from all sources knowing with confidence that all truth ultimately comes from God.

Your friend,

Shane

Letters to a Former Missionary Companion

May 14, 2014 by Mike Ash

The following series of articles is a fictional dialogue between Shane and Doug, two former missionary companions many years after their missions. Shane writes to his friend Doug who has posted comments about his on-going faith crisis on Facebook. The characters are fictionalized composites of members who have faced these same dilemmas but the issues are based on very real problems which have caused some to stumble. Likewise, the responding arguments are based on the author’s own personal engagement with these same concerns as well as his discussion of these issues with other members who have struggled. (By Michael R. Ash, author of Shaken Faith Syndrome: Strengthening One’s Testimony in the Face of Criticism and Doubt, and Of Faith and Reason: 80 Evidences Supporting the Prophet Joseph Smith.)

Dear Doug,

It was wonderful to hear from you again. Glad that your family is healthy and well. Exciting times now that your oldest daughter is off to college–––gray hairs on your head are sure to follow.

As an extension of our discussions on your Facebook page, I thought we could exchange some personal emails wherein we can address some of your concerns in greater detail. I can certainly appreciate your current struggle with your faith. I never told you this (my wife didn’t even know until recently) but I myself went through a similar faith crisis a number of years ago. I remember how my stomach hurt and how I had trouble sleeping. I had put so much of my life into the Church and suddenly I felt like I had been conned. I was angry, sad, and didn’t really know where to turn for answers. I started to bring up some of my issues in Priesthood and Sunday School classes, but the confused looks on other ward members’ faces quickly taught me to just keep quiet.

I tried talking to my bishop about it once. He was concerned for me but I don’t think he really understood what I was going through. He emphasized the importance of reading the Book of Mormon every day in addition to the New Testament (the Sunday School curriculum we were studying at that time) and reminded me of the importance of humility and prayer.

None of that seemed to soften the distress I was feeling from the things I was reading on the Internet. While I felt like a spiritual person, I began to wonder if I was deluding myself about my core beliefs. It wasn’t like there was a single silver bullet that had killed my testimony, but there was an accumulation of things–––like a thousand cuts (some were paper cuts, some were knife wounds) that were causing me to bleed out my religious convictions.

The thing that hurt the most was the same thing you pointed out on one of your Facebook posts–––I felt I had been lied to. It really bothered me that critics seemed to know more about the true history of my Church than I did. Why hadn’t I learned any of those things in my lifetime as a member of the Church? Why had I never been told that Joseph used a seer stone in a hat to translate the Book of Mormon? Why wasn’t I told the details about his many marriages (some of which sounded deviant)? It was hard for me to imagine that Church leaders didn’t know this information if critics knew about it. And if leaders knew about this information and weren’t sharing it with us–––the members–––it smacked of a “cover up.”

I really wished my dad was around to talk with. He loved to read church books. Sometimes he tried to share his findings with me but quite honestly, I reciprocated with perfunctory interest. I had a strong testimony since I was a kid. I went on a mission, married in the temple, and served as a bishopric counselor twice. I really didn’t get why Dad found interest in intellectual studies about the Church. I brushed it off as his “gospel hobby.” After he died I inherited his library of books but never read them. I nearly gave them all away to Deseret Industries but decided it looked cool to have so many books on my bookshelves.

At the peak of my own faith crisis–––with no one to talk to about my struggles and the issues that challenged my testimony–––I decided to categorize Dad’s books on the shelves according to topic. I found books on the Old Testament, the New Testament, the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham, Church history, and the lives of modern prophets. There were also books on philosophy, science, and early Christian and Jewish writings.

I found a number of books written by general authorities, books by authors I’d never heard of (and had no idea if they were LDS), and several books by the late Hugh Nibley. I don’t think I had ever read anything by Hugh Nibley (unless he had published something in the Ensign) but I knew who he was. I decided to read some of the things Dad found so interesting by starting with Nibley’s Since Cumorah.

It was a fascinating read and it opened my eyes to things about the Book of Mormon which I had never before considered. For me, the scriptures–––including the Book of Mormon–––where almost like untouchable faxes from the mind of God to the pen of prophets. I took everything they said as literal, or nearly literal. When I had first stumbled upon the writings of critics, I was badly shaken because they were able to show that some of the things that seemed literal to me were impossible, illogical, or contradicted by other scripture or the word of modern prophets.

After reading Nibley’s book I realized–––for the first time in my life–––that real people who interacted in real ways with a real ancient environment recorded the scriptures. The obvious had never occurred to me before–––I was reading the scriptures from my 21st century mind-set instead of trying to understand the scriptures from within the framework of an ancient context.

Since Cumorah was the first glimmer of light in my darkening testimony. It didn’t necessarily convince me that the Church was true, but it did make me realize that I really didn’t know that much about my own scriptures–––scriptures I had been reading regularly since my mission–––and offered hope that maybe there were logical answers to the critical claims I had read online.

It took me less than four days to devour Since Cumorah, so I dug deeper into Dad’s books. My dad was raised on an Idaho farm but got his agricultural degree at Utah State University. So mixed in his collection were several books on agriculture. As I categorized Dad’s old library I tried to separate his Church books from his agricultural books and novels. Suddenly I realized that several books that I had been putting in the agricultural pile (the books were entitled FARMS Review) were actually Church books–––most of which contained multiple essays, and all of which were tied to an organization supported by BYU. Apparently FARMS was an acronym for The Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (since that time I’ve discovered that they changed their name to the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Studies). Dad had probably a dozen different FARMS Reviews dating back to the late 1980s.

To my wonderful surprise, this collection of books addressed many of the exact issues with which I was struggling. While I didn’t find answers to all of my questions in that collection, I found enough to convince me that the critics didn’t have the last word on any of these topics. I also found that there are strong intellectual reasons to believe. One of the most important things I discovered from my research was that there was no Church “cover up.” Many of the issues that troubled me were actually acknowledged and discussed in official Church publications and in publications officially supported by the Church.

The other very important thing that I realized–––and this is obvious in hindsight–––is that the same data can be interpreted in different ways. This happens all the time in science, history, politics, and so forth. It’s inescapable in religious matters as well. I’ve read some critics who imply that they’ve won the argument by declaring, “See Mormon scholars don’t deny that Joseph Smith’s various accounts of his First Vision contain discrepancies.” However, while critics and believers often agree on the data, they can disagree with the interpretation or significance of the data.

When I went through my faith crisis, it seemed that there was no way to understand the troubling information and still believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet. The new pro-LDS scholarly material that I discovered, however, showed me that such things could be understood in a context of belief. I didn’t need to abandon my faith. If my previous spiritual experiences meant anything to me–––if I felt that there was a spiritual element of truth to Mormonism–––I could harmonize seemingly difficult issues in a worldview that saw Joseph Smith as the prophet of the Restoration. I even found that such a worldview was supported (not proven, but supported) by historical and archaeological evidences that made more sense in the context of belief than they would in a context of unbelief.

My testimony had been bruised and healed. Once my brain recognized that belief was a viable and logical option, my heart was once again able to enjoy the wonderful peace I feel with the companionship of the Holy Ghost.

After devouring every Church-related book my dad bequeathed to me, my thirst for knowledge lead me to the Interpreter Foundation (www.MormonInterepreter.com)–––a site conceived by many of the scholars once associated with FARMS–––and the website FairMormon.org, which helps struggling members who are beset by the same challenging issues that damaged my faith. I found tons of answers on the FairMormon site, as well as videos, podcasts, and a bookstore with many books that helped me think more critically about my beliefs and assumptions. All of this–––my past history with the same difficult issues with which you are currently struggling–––has given me an insight into what you are going through. If you are willing, I’d really like to correspond with you and discuss those issues you raised on your Facebook page.

Your friend,

Shane.

Joseph Smith’s Greatest Hits

October 31, 2013 by Mike Ash

“Mormonism,” wrote one LDS-critical author, “would gain a measure of respectability if only some credible evidence could be found to support at least one of Joseph Smith’s claims.”[i]

In my book Shaken Faith Syndrome, I spend some time talking about the nature of evidence and the fact that evidence does not equal proof. Proof is generally a conclusion we infer from what we see as strong or overwhelming evidence. Scholars generally tend to avoid terms such as proof when dealing with inconclusive and open-ended topics such as religion or certain aspects of history and archaeology. While critics seem to want secular “proof” for the Book of Mormon, that is not how science works. In science, cases are typically built with supporting evidences and a convergence of evidence from various disciplines. While evidence doesn’t typically prove a position it can demonstrate consistency with the position of the theory or claim.[ii]

Evidence is basically any data that supports a proposition. Not all evidence is equal in strength (or weight) and we evaluate the strength of evidence based on numerous other factors—including additional evidence. There is evidence for all sorts of things and even conflicting evidence on unresolved questions. “Some of it is strong to the point of proof or near-proof,” notes Dr. Daniel Peterson, while other evidence may be “weak to the point, almost, of non-existence. Much of it is somewhere in between. Until a question has been settled beyond any reasonable disagreement, there will typically be relevant evidence pointing in at least two directions, and possibly in many more. It is only when a question is effectively declared dead, when a single answer triumphs, that the seemingly contrary evidence ceases to function as evidence.”[iii]

Lastly, it’s important to understand that bias plays a large factor in the weight assigned to different evidences. No matter how we might wish it were otherwise, the fact is there is no unity among humankind. Wars are fought over religious and political disagreements, land rights, greed, real or perceived offenses, or dislike of another person’s culture or color. In the United States we are constantly bombarded with media commentaries and debates by intelligent people who disagree on various major and minor political and economic issues. All parties think they are right and can generally buttress their agendas and positions with supporting evidences. They can also generally offer reasonable explanations that counter the evidences proffered by their opponents. As atheist researcher Michael Shermer explains,

Most people, most of the time, arrive at their beliefs for a host of reasons involving personality and temperament, family dynamics and cultural background, parents and siblings, peer groups and teachers, education and books, mentors and heroes, and various life experiences, very few of which have anything at all to do with intelligence. The Enlightenment ideal of Homo rationalis has us sitting down before a table of facts, weighing them in the balance pro and con, and then employing logic and reason to determine which set of facts best supports this or that theory. This is not at all how we form beliefs. What happens is that the facts of the world are filtered by our brains through the colored lenses of worldviews, paradigms, theories, hypotheses, conjectures, hunches, biases, and prejudices we have accumulated through living. We then sort through the facts and select those that confirm what we already believe and ignore or rationalize away those that contradict our beliefs.[iv]

While bias is an inescapable part of human nature, we can strive for balance if we become aware of the human limitations to rational thinking. For those who reject the divine, typically no intellectual argument will convince them otherwise. There is no way to prove the existence of God or the divine Sonship of Jesus Christ through secular argument alone.

For those who have had spiritual promptings, who can feel the divine hand in either their daily lives or at specific points in their past, or who find that the fruit of the Gospel tastes good (see Alma 32), it can be helpful to know that many secular evidences support belief.

Austin Farrer, praising C.S. Lewis once said,

“Though argument does not create conviction, lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows that ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish.”[v]

In 2008, as my book Shaken Faith Syndrome was getting ready for publication, I contemplated on the fact that most of the book engaged the negative influences toward belief; my book addresses these negative influences and provides specific answers to common anti-LDS arguments. But I was a bit bothered that I hadn’t really included some of the wonderful and exciting evidences in favor of belief. So just a few short months after Shaken Faith Syndrome came off the press, Cedar Fort, Inc. Published my book, Of Faith and Reason: 80 Evidences Supporting the Prophet Joseph Smith.

While the critics cannot prove that God does not exist and that Joseph Smith did not speak to the Father and Son on a hill in Palmyra, neither can believers prove that an angel led Joseph to an ancient Nephite record, or that resurrected beings restored the priesthood to the young prophet. Instead, critics attempt to show that Joseph borrowed teachings and stories from his environment to create a fictional Book of Mormon as well as a man-made Church. These criticisms are addressed in Shaken Faith Syndrome. Believers can show, however, that there are many evidences which support and are consistent with the story told by Joseph Smith. There is evidence consistent with the claim that an ancient family from Jerusalem traversed the Arabian Desert in about 600 B.C. There is evidence consistent with the claim that Joseph possessed actual metal plates with the appearance of gold. There is evidence consistent with the claim that Joseph restored authentic ancient Christian teachings that were no longer practiced and/or taught by Christianity in his day.

For example, in Helaman chapter 1 we read of Paanchi, one of the sons of Pahoran who fought with his brothers for the judgment seat following their father’s death. While the names may sound made-up to some, we now know that they are authentic Egyptian names and were unlikely to have been available to Joseph Smith. Scholars at the Maxwell Institute relate the story of William F. Albright—a renowned (non-LDS) Near Eastern scholar at John Hopkins University—who responded to a critic eliciting negative comments about LDS scriptures. Albright said he was surprised to find Paanchi and Pahoran—two authentic Egyptian names—in the Book of Mormon. He also noted that the names appear in close reference to the original Book of Mormon language being written in reformed Egyptian. He didn’t know how to explain the appearance of these names and doubted that Joseph could have learned Egyptian from any early nineteenth century source. Perhaps, Albright suggested, Joseph Smith was some kind of “religious genius.”[vi]

Over the next few months, I plan to share some excerpts from Of Faith and Reason in the hopes of demonstrating that our faith in the Restored Gospel, the Book of Mormon, and the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith is supported by evidence that is consistent with the claims made by the LDS Church.

________________________________

* This article also appeared in Meridian Magazine.

[i] Quoted in Of Faith and Reason: 80 Evidences Supporting the Prophet Joseph Smith(Springville, Ut: Cedar Fort, 2008), xi .

[ii] Actually, science typically tries to “falsify” or eliminate the data that is least consistent with a theory, thereby strengthening those theories that are more consistent with the data.

[iii] Quoted in Shaken Faith Syndrome: Strengthening One’s Testimony in the Face of Criticism and Doubt, 2^nd edition (Redding, CA: The Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, 2008), 50.

[iv] Michael Shermer, The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies—How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths (New York: Times Books, 2011), 36.

[v] Cited by Neal A. Maxwell, “Discipleship and Scholarship,” Brigham Young University Studies 32:3 (1992), 5.

[vi] John A. Tvedtnes, John Gee, and Matthew Roper, “Book of Mormon Names Attested in Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 9, no. 10 (2000): 45.

Betrayal and Our Relationship with Church History

October 17, 2013 by Mike Ash

(This is the second half of an article based on a 2013 FairMormon Conference presentation)

In any relationship, one of the things that seems to cause the most pain and anger is the feeling of betrayal. This same problem can surface in our relationship with the Church. For example, if a member finds information that conflicts with his or her assumptions about Church history, they may feel that the Church has lied. The pain and anger of feeling betrayed may take the leading role in the desire to leave the faith while the original troubling issue or issues may become secondary. A testimony lost at this stage can be hard to restore. What might have been sufficient answers earlier become insufficient once resentment—as a result of presumably being deceived—replaces faith. At this point logic and rationale take a back seat to emotion and answers to the original challenging issues are often met by a litany of other issues.

When potentially troubling information is presented in faith-promoting ways, the information—accompanied by the weight of a faithful context—often helps members understand difficult issues within a framework of their beliefs. When hostile sources present the same information, they frequently claim or imply that the Church hides this information from members. The critics supposedly are merely exposing a “cover-up.” This may add weight to the contra-LDS source and give the impression that they (the critics) are really the objective truth-seekers who are merely uncovering the facts. It’s often not the information that makes people leave, but the perception that the information was “hidden.” The feelings of deception and betrayal ultimately drive many people out more frequently than the discovery itself.

Is there any truth to the charge that the Church has withheld challenging details of the past? The answer is both yes and no.

Information can be withheld intentionally or unintentionally. First we will discuss the intentional reasons. In the context of early creations of LDS history, we find a tradition among most nineteenth-century biographies (the primary form of historical creations) that emphasized the positive aspects of heroic figures in the hopes of inspiring readers while often exaggerating or even fabricating anecdotes—such as George Washington chopping down his father’s cherry tree. Frequently, in cases of early American biographies involving religious or philosophical movements, the movement took center stage and the “history” was a tool for evangelizing the movement. Any information that might harm the movement was withheld from the biography/history.

Early Mormon historians, like many historians of their era, were not trained in history but were instead influenced by the English Puritans whose histories were written as faithful explanations of their events. These Puritans (as well as early LDS historians) believed that, like the Hebrews before them, they were God’s chosen people whose coming to America was part of God’s unfolding plan. “Their history and biography,” note three prominent historians, “told the saga of God’s dealings as seen in their personal lives. In short, Puritan biography and autobiography were simultaneously scripture as well as history.” “Accuracy and realism were …largely things of the future.”[i]

Apostle George Q. Cannon, whose faith-promoting stories were intended for the youth of the Church, wrote some of the more popular historical accounts of early Mormonism. Such works, like many other non-LDS works of the nineteenth century, were defensive in tone, biased, one-dimensional, and devoted to evangelizing a particular perspective. Today such writings are often referred to as hagiographies. It was not until the middle of the twentieth century that the modern biography—critical, multi-dimensional, and objective (at least in principle)—“began to take its present form.”[ii] The early faith-promoting histories, however, became the source of historical knowledge for many Church members, launched similar popular works for decades to come, and influenced the versions of history that were taught in Church and official Church publications. While it can be said that early LDS histories intentionally withheld challenging and non-flattering information, in the context of the times this was not unique to Mormonism and is to be expected.

As for the unintentional censoring of information, we turn to the Church curriculum. Some ex-members complain that they never heard certain aspects of Church history from the Sunday School classes they attended. The purpose of Church curriculum, however, including Sunday School, Priesthood, and Relief Society, is to support the mission of the Church: to bring people to Christ. Very little actual history is discussed in Church classes. Even every fourth year when the Doctrine and Covenants is taught (which includes some Church history) the primary goal of the class is to help members draw closer to God, seek the Spirit, and understand gospel principles.

As an international Church, the correlation of materials and teachings is aimed at harmonizing lessons and instruction, and in accommodating the tender new member with basic Gospel principals—those teachings which affect our relationships with God and our fellow brothers and sisters.

Thousands of virtually untrained volunteers, with varying degrees of gospel and historical knowledge and education (or lack thereof) endeavor to bring the Spirit into the classroom so that class members can be spiritually edified. While some Gospel Doctrine teachers may be knowledgeable enough to share detailed historical information, the manuals generally give basic historical outlines that specifically relate to lessons focusing on one or more gospel principles and how to apply those principals in the lives of members. In short, Church is a place for worship, spiritual edification, and enlightenment, not for in-depth historical discussion.

Despite the primary foci of Church curriculum and official Church publications, the vast majority of challenging issues have seen brief discussions or notes in a variety of LDS-targeted publications, conferences, and programs.

If these topics have been mentioned, why are some members shocked when they first encounter them in LDS-critical publications? Americans, unfortunately, are by and large, literate but uniformed. We tend to spend less time reading than watching TV or surfing the Internet. Several studies show that fewer Americans read books, and many are severely uninformed in regards to significant historical issues, current events, or scientific facts. According to Carl Sagan, 63% of Americans are unaware that the last dinosaur died before the first humans lived, and nearly half of American adults do not know that the Earth goes around the sun and that it takes a year to do so.[iii]

According to one author who wrote about the decline in American religious knowledge, 60% of Americans cannot name five of the Ten Commandments and 50% of high school seniors think Sodom and Gomorrah were married.[iv] Another study claims that one third of Americans polled believe that evangelist Billy Graham delivered the Sermon on the Mount.[v]

With such non-reader ignorance, is it really any wonder that a number of Mormons are unfamiliar with some of the more difficult issues that have been discussed in Church publications? To repeat a comment generally attributed to Mark Twain: “The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can’t read them.”[vi]

The charge that the Church has hidden the truth has not landed on deaf ears.The Church “has made no effort to hide or obscure its history,” elder Marlin K. Jensen said, but some aspects “haven’t been emphasized often because they were not necessarily germane to what is taught at present.”

Can the Church do better to explain its history, even to its own members? Sure, Jensen said. “Can we weave some of this into our seminaries, institutes and adult curriculum? I think we can, and efforts are under way to do that.” The church has assigned a staffer to create “a strategy to get church history onto the Web,” he said. “We are also working on an initiative to answer some of these more pressing questions.” [vii]

We need better inoculation and I think the Church is making, and will continue to make, efforts to see this happen. The Joseph Smith Papers Project is a great start. This project has digitized a huge amount of early Mormon documents including early copies of the Book of Mormon, early revelations and letters, and even copies of the surviving portions of the Joseph Smith papyri. And it’s all available on-line, free for anyone who wants to study them.

While the Gospel is rich, simple, and the singular path to everlasting happiness, Church history is rich, complex, and multi-dimensional. Unfortunately, many past and current members have conflated the two by expressing historical narratives in a manner that undervalued their true complexities. The unfortunate consequence of circumscribed historical narratives resulted in the frustrated testimonies of twenty-first century members (both lay members and leaders) who first learned of the historical complexities on hostile websites.

The same twenty-first century technology which has contributed to member feelings of betrayal, however, is now being used by the Church (both in current and future projects) to help struggling members as well as to inoculate members before they stumble.

The entire world’s history of God’s involvement with His children is a story of imperfect humans accomplishing the work of the Lord even while continuing to struggle with sin, misunderstanding, feeble attempts, and weakness. The wonderful thing about such a realization is that God can also work through me—and each of us—despite our own weaknesses, sins, and faults.

_______________________________

* This article also appeared in Meridian Magazine.

[i] Ronald W. Walker, David J. Whittaker, and James B. Allen, Mormon History (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2001), 117.

[ii] Ibid., 117, 119–120.

[iii] Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark (New York: Ballantine Books, 1996), 324.

[iv] Cathy Lynn Grossman, “Americans Get an ‘F’ in Religion,” USA Today (14 March 2007);available online (accessed 17 September 2012).

[v] “What Americans Should But Don’t Know About Religion,” Pew Research Center Publications (6 February 2008) (accessed 17 September 2012).

[vi] While this quote is almost universally attributed to Samuel Clemens (a.k.a. Mark Twain), I have been unable to find the original source for this quote. See James Glen Stovall (accessed 14 December 2012).

Testimony Damage and the Problem of Assumptions pt. 1

October 3, 2013 by Mike Ash

(This is the first half of an article based on a 2013 FairMormon Conference presentation)

A Relief Society President searches the Internet for material on a lesson. A High Priest Group Leader follows various links on the Web preparing for a talk. A returned missionary watches some “Mormon” videos that were sent to him from a friend in his student ward. All three eventually leave the Church because of testimony-shaking material they “discovered” on the Internet. Most of us know someone who might fit such general scenarios.

Not only do they discover unsettling contra-LDS information on the Web, but they might not know where to turn for answers or help. They may feel that it wrong to question or doubt. They may be apprehensive about expressing their questions, concerns, or doubts to other Church members (or even to their spouses or other family members) because they fear that they would be looked down upon by others. With nowhere to turn, they often turn back to the Internet and sometimes right into the arms of those critics who are eager to feed the struggling member more unsettling information.

Most of us have heard the expression: “Church is a hospital for sinners, not a museum for Saints.” Every single one of us struggles with imperfection, sins, and testimony. Unfortunately too many members seem to think that a weakened testimony or emerging doubts is indicative of increase sin or a desire to sin. My friend Paul McNabb—a Stake Presidency Counselor who has advised bishops with struggling members— once noted:

“…doubt is a natural part of our mortal sojourn. It is not sin, nor does it always (or even mostly) stem from sin. Faith is not belief without doubt, but rather faith is obedience to imperfectly-understood-but-true principles in the presence of doubt. In general, I would counsel leaders to not assume that doubt stems from transgression and to not assume that doubt is in some way the ‘fault’ of the individual experiencing it. I think leaders can best serve those going through a crisis of faith by being understanding, sympathetic, and compassionate.”[i]

It’s important that we understand that questioning the things we do, believe, or accept is normal and part of the process that leads from youth to maturity, as well as from maturity to wisdom. There would be no growth without questioning. Questions lead to answers, resolutions, solidifying convictions, and even to discarding false assumptions. Many doctrines and teachings were revealed as the result of questions petitioned to God.

Questioning traditions, folklore, and scripture resulted in Joseph Smith’s First Vision, the revelation known as the Word of Wisdom, an increased understanding of the Spirit World as recorded in D&C 138, and the expansion of the priesthood to all worthy males as recorded in the D&C Official Declaration—2. Personal application of prophetic and scriptural directives come as we question the meaning and relevance of the Word of God in our own lives, and academic questions have led to greater understanding of early LDS history, biblical history, as well as the world in which ancient prophets lived.

Unavoidably, questions have also led to loss of testimony and a rejection of a belief in modern prophets, scriptures, or even in God. The affect questions and doubts have upon our personal spiritual convictions varies greatly depending on the individual. For some, doubt may appear suddenly, emerge periodically, or it might plague believers all of their lives. While about 95% of Americans believe in God, for example, nearly half—including those who consider themselves to be religiously devout—seriously question their faith from time to time.^{^[ii]}

For some, doubts and questions may simply be part of one’s seeking nature. In our evolving world of ever-increasing information some may not feel content with any answer and may always be searching for the next best academic evaluation. For many, however, questions can surface because of what seems to be reliable information that contradicts long-held beliefs. The doubt and questions that arise from such discoveries often create emotional, spiritual, and intellectual heartburn and pain. Troubling discoveries can cause sleeplessness, depression, tears, and even physical maladies. Typically this pain is generated when assumptions and expectations are turned on their heads.

It’s human nature to make assumptions. Assumptions are those things which we take for granted—things we don’t critically examine. We’ve all been told not to judge a book by its cover, but that initial response is an unavoidable characteristic of human nature. We make evaluations and judgments on what we see or perceive even though those perceptions may not be accurate.

Our assumptions typically offer a base-line or starting point for many of the things we believe. We can’t know all the answers to everything so we make assumptions based on information we do have and fill in the blanks with inferences based on our assumptions. In other words, we infer, or come to conclusions about things around us, based on our assumptions.

We couldn’t function in any society without assumptions and inferences because we can’t possibly examine everything around us all of the time. This leads to the unavoidable fact that we will often make false assumptions and inferences—fed by our own personal world views or by misinformation, a lack of information, or the inability to comprehend or internalize additional information. All humans – Even prophets—can, have, and will make false assumptions.

Non-LDS psychologist Dr. Daniel Kahneman has argued that we think in two distinct (yet metaphorical) systems. System 1 is our intuitive thought process and the process to which we typically turn first. “…the intuitive System 1 is more influential than your experience tells you, and it is the secret author of many of the choices and judgments you make.” System 1 “continually constructs a coherent interpretation of what is going on in our world at any instant.”[iii]

System 2’s process is much more laborious and requires focus and concentration. “System 2 is mobilized when a question arises for which System 1 does not offer an answer….”[iv] “The defining feature of System 2,” writes Kahneman, “…is that its operations are effortful, and one of its main characteristics is laziness, a reluctance to invest more effort than is strictly necessary.”

As a consequence, the thoughts and actions that System 2 believes it has chosen are often guided by the figure at the center of the story, System 1. However, there are vital tasks that only System 2 can perform because they require effort and acts of self-control in which the intuitions and impulses of System 1 are overcome.[v]

System 1 is not a bad system. It is what guides us through our everyday lives. Our intuitions are typically formed from experience with similar situations and System 1 can quickly and accurately help us maneuver through obstacles and routines that are not too difficult. System 2 kicks in when System 1 is overwhelmed and needs extra muscle. And while System 1 is linked with our emotions, studies indicate that we need our emotions in our decision-making endeavors. Studies show that that “people who do not display the appropriate emotions before they decide, sometimes because of brain damage, also have an impaired ability to make good decisions.”[vi]

Latter-day Saints, like all people, create their own stumbling blocks by automatically and uncritically accepting the unexamined assumptions that frequently flow from System 1. All of us embrace concepts, beliefs, or positions that we unquestioningly accept primarily because we have never thought of questioning the belief, position, or concept—System 1 is the easier path. Unfortunately, we occasionally confuse beliefs on peripheral teachings—such as rumors, traditions, or personal opinions—with LDS doctrines.

Critics may unconsciously or consciously take advantage of the natural inclination that most people—most of the time—will rely on the quick and easy answers supplied by System 1. A critic, for example, might create a list of problems with the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, or the character of Joseph Smith. At first glance, such a list can appear impressive and detrimental to LDS truth claims. Critics give the impression that the issues are simple (perhaps black and white) and therefore the conclusion they propose (that the Church is false) is obvious to any unbiased observer (which, of course, is a faulty assumption because there are no unbiased observers).

The problem is that, more often than not, the issues are not simple—they are frequently complex, especially when we have to compare or understand the issues in context of time, circumstance, or even culture. A lot more ink is required to respond to an accusation then to make an accusation. Generally, we tend to avoid turning to System 2 to analyze the complexities of the issues and the rebuttals. System 2, as Kahneman notes, is lazy. We may intuitively (and incorrectly) accept the conclusion of System 1 (the easy list of anti-Mormon arguments) and reject the more difficult System 2 (the rebuttals) simply because the accusations are preferred because of their ease of acceptance. Once the conclusion is accepted (that the anti-Mormon’s simple list is the correct one) the arguments supporting the conclusion are accepted as well. As Kahneman notes, “…when people believe a conclusion is true, they are also very likely to believe arguments that appear to support it, even when these arguments are unsound.”[vii]

Assumptions often feed expectations. Most of our assumptions in life lead to low expectations and we aren’t really bothered if we discover that some of our assumptions are false. We may assume, for instance, that the Great Wall of China is the only-made made object visible from the moon. If we find out, however, that the Great Wall becomes invisible to the naked eye long before reaching the moon, our world would not likely crash down around us.

False assumptions within important relationships, however, can be destructive because we have greater expectations. Such relationships would include those with your spouse, parents, children, government, employer, Church, or God. All of us have certain expectations when we are involved in a relationship. The more invested we are in the relationship the greater the expectations and therefore the greater pain when our assumptions collide with a new image that contradicts those assumptions.

It would not matter, for example, if we discovered that we were incorrect about Joseph Smith’s clothing styles, hair color, or pitch of voice. It would likely matter, however, if we discovered information implying that Joseph was a fraud or delusional or that the Book of Mormon was merely fiction.

We should tread lightly if we assume that our understanding of the Gospel will not change, that the history of the Restoration is always neat and tidy, that all prophets always behaved as we hope prophets would behave, that all those who recorded scripture remembered everything accurately, or that scripture accurately reflects scientific and historical truths.

As members of Christ’s Church, as members of our individual stakes, wards, quorums, or Relief Societies, we should not assume that we know the hearts, the spirituality, or righteousness of others or why they might struggle with a testimony.

Our assumptions may not only contribute to the diminution of another member’s testimony—by making them feel unworthy for questioning—but our unexamined assumptions about the Church, history, science, or Gospel topics could potentially impair our own testimony when we discover that some of our assumptions are weak or erroneous. False assumptions could cause us to become testimony-struggling-members who are on the receiving end of the judgmental assumptions of other members.

*This article also appeared in Meridian Magazine.

________________________________

[i] Paul McNabb, personal communication 24 June 2013.

[ii] George Bishop, “The Americans’ Belief in God,” Public Opinion Quarterly 63 (1999): 421–434, cited in Paul Froese and Christopher Bader, “Does God Matter?: A Social Science Critique”Harvard Divinity Bulletin, n.1 and 2; available online (accessed 2 December 2012).

[iii] Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow, 13.

[iv] Ibid., 24.

[v] Ibid., 31.

[vi] Ibid., 25.

[vii] Ibid., 45.

FAIR Has New Name/Shaken Faith Syndrome Updated.

August 23, 2013 by Mike Ash

“There will be a convergence of discoveries (never enough, mind you, to remove the need for faith) to make plain and plausible what the modern prophets have been saying all along…[I] do not expect incontrovertible proof to come in this way…, but neither will the Church be outdone by hostile or pseudo-scholars.” (Neal A. Maxwell)

In 1997 a group of Latter-day Saints who frequented the Mormon message boards of America Online found that they were responding to the same LDS-critical arguments over and over. They decided to form a non-profit organization so they could share information and create a repository of responses. That organization was The Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, or FAIR. In 1999 FAIR held their first conference in Ben Lomond California. A large percentage of the few who attended this first conference were the speakers themselves. Two weeks ago FAIR held their fifteenth annual conference in Provo, Utah, with about 400 attendees.

Through the years many people have questioned the meaning of the word “apologetics” in FAIR’s title. Why are Mormons apologizing? What are they apologizing for? The word “apologetics” comes from the Greek “apologia” and is used four times in the Greek New Testament. It means to “defend” one’s believe or faith. FAIR is not apologizing for anything, but rather defending LDS beliefs from critical attacks.

A lot of things have changed through the years in the FAIR organization. While the group was originally formed because of the combative nature of the message board atmosphere, FAIR eventually separated themselves from the contentious message board environment and focused on “educative apologetics.” As Gerald Bay once said, “You can never argue a person into faith; Christian theology and apologetics exist in order to make sense of the world for the believer, but they do not in themselves create that belief.”[i]

FAIR is focused on helping or educating members who struggle with challenging issues, or investigators who are searching for answers to anti-LDS accusations. While FAIR will always be an apologetics organization, the confusion over the word “apologetics” has prompted a more recent change in the FAIR title. It was announced at the 2013 FAIR Conference that FAIR will now be known as FairMormon with the tag line: Critical Questions, Faithful Answers.[ii] As Steven Densley (newly appointed Vice President of FairMormon) explains, “We have changed our name and are updating our websites in order to make them more easily accessible. The name has been simplified. Instead of The Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, it is now simply FairMormon. Hopefully this will be easier to remember and will allow us to spend more time doing apologetics rather than spending our time explaining what apologetics is. Our mission has not changed, but hopefully, with the name change and the changes with the websites, our organization will be more effective.”[iii]

We’re not going to argue someone back into the Church, but we can help inoculate members against LDS-critical arguments through better education, and—for those whose testimonies are faltering—we can set the record straight on false anti-LDS claims or offer logical alternative views which fit within a framework of belief. I’ve attempted to do both in my book Shaken Faith Syndrome: Strengthening One’s Testimony in the Face of Criticism and Doubt.

It’s been 5 years since Shaken Faith Syndrome was first released. We ran out of copies at the end of last year—couldn’t even fill our Christmas order for Deseret Book. It was decided, since another printing was needed, that we would introduce a 2nd edition which would fix typos and mistakes as well as update and add material that had changed since 2008. The result is the 2nd edition of Shaken Faith Syndrome.

For those of you who already have Shaken Faith Syndrome 1, I want to quickly note some of the changes made in the 2nd edition (in addition to new front & back covers). First, I reshuffled several of the chapters and material from some of the chapters to create better flow and continuity. It has a vastly improved index making it tons easier to find what you are looking for. I added a fair amount of additional material. The page count for the first edition was 301 pages; the second edition is 358 pages and has a slightly smaller font to accommodate all the extra material without making the page count excessive. 15 of the 28 chapters (if we include the Foreword) has additional material—some chapters with more additional material than others.

Some of the additional material includes more info on archaeology and the Book of Mormon, Book of Mormon geography, a section addressing geographical influences from Joseph Smith’s environment which are claimed to have impacted the Book of Mormon narrative. It also includes more information on Book of Mormon anachronisms, more discussion on cognitive dissonance and former Mormon exit narratives, brief reviews of the competing geographical models and the scriptures which seem to suggest that the United States fulfills some Nephite prophecies, and updated info on the DNA issue. I draw upon new information from Don Bradley’s 2011 FAIR presentation on my chapter regarding the Kinderhook Plates, and I’ve also added a new chapter on Race & the Church.

What the two books have in common are what they attempt to achieve and the fact that they are both divided into two major sections. Section 1 addresses the basic problems which create and foster doubt as well as the assumptions which can turn into stumbling blocks when faced with challenging issues. This first section (which constitutes approximately 1/3 of the new edition) tries to deal with the root of the problems that can cause Shaken Faith Syndrome. If members can grasp the principals expressed in Section 1 they should be apply those principals to any LDS-critical argument they might encounter. Section 2—relying on the material in Section 1—engages most of the more common LDS-critical accusations such as DNA, the Book of Abraham, Plural Marriage, the First Vision, Joseph Smith and treasure digging, Masonry & the Temple, and lots more.

There is a growing problem with members encountering information on the Internet that conflicts with what they thought they knew about Church history and Shaken Faith Syndrome attempts to put this information in a context of belief which demonstrates that, as the Lord told Joseph Smith in D&C 71:9, “there is no weapon that is formed against you shall prosper.” Once we can put challenging issues in context, they no longer become stumbling blocks.

*This article also appeared in Meridian Magazine.

[i] Gerald Bray, “Man’s Righteousness and God’s Salvation,” Evangel, the British Evangelical Review 10. 2 (1992): 6.

[ii] See www.ldschurchnews.com

[iii] Personal communication, 9 August 2013.

A Gathering of Study and Faith

July 25, 2013 by Mike Ash

“…as all have not faith,” the Lord told the members of the early Restored Church, “seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith” (D&C 88:118).

In the early 1980s I struggled for a brief time with my own personal testimony, brought on by exposure to LDS-critical material for which I had no answers. I was stunned, confused, and anxious. In my search for answers I stumbled upon the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS)—a newly formed (1979) organization of LDS scholars. The handful of writings and reprints produced by this LDS scholarly group was exactly what my fledging testimony needed.

I joined their mailing-list, purchased every publication they had, and became aware of other sources for academic studies of LDS issues—sources such as BYU Studies,Sunstone, Dialogue, and the writings of Hugh Nibley. I bought used back-copies of everything I could get my hands on to feed my craving for learning more.

In the FARMS newsletters I would occasionally get invitations to attend a lecture or other event hosted by the scholars who contributed to LDS studies. These were always held in Utah, but I was a young family-man in Colorado without the means to travel these events. In 1985 BYU hosted the first Ramses II exhibit and in my FARMS newsletter I received an invitation to attend a tour of the exhibit with Hugh Nibley as the guide. Since Dr. Nibley was my hero at that stage in my life, I was devastated that I was unable to attend.

My wife and I were convinced that we needed to move to Utah, in part, so I could be closer the Mecca of LDS scholarship. Once we settled in Ogden (north of Salt Lake City) I attended virtually every event the FARMS offered. In 1999 the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIR) was created.

Like the original FARMS (now-defunct and replaced by BYU’s Maxwell Institute) FAIR was organized by a group of grass-roots Latter-day Saint volunteers who were interested in LDS studies. FAIR, however, was dedicated to educative apologetics (“apologetics” means to defend one’s beliefs). With a policy of non-confrontation (they didn’t want to engage in “Bible-bashing”) FAIR’s goal was to apply scholarly research and answers to the anti-LDS accusations of the Church’s critics.

Since its inception as a non-profit organization, FAIR has grown into a multi-national organization of volunteers who draw upon the best latest scholarship, and has produced books (such as my Shaken Faith Syndrome), DVDs, YouTube Videos, podcasts, a Wiki, and hundreds of articles. In 1999 FAIR held its first conference in California. In 2000 the venue was moved to Utah where it has remained ever. I attended the first Utah FAIR Conference and haven’t missed one since.

There are a few annual events I eagerly anticipate—Christmas with my family, Halloween, 4^th of July, and the annual FAIR Conference. Some of the brightest LDS scholars have spoken on some of the most interesting topics ranging from such issues as Egyptology, DNA, Race Issues, Women’s Issues, the First Vision, Same-Sex Attraction, Plural Marriage, and more. The FAIR Conferences are consistently one of the highlights of my year.

This year, the 15^th annual FAIR Conference will be held August 1 and 2 and promises to continue the standard of interest and excellence that has drawn increasingly larger crowds. The first FAIR Utah Conference was held in Alta. The next few years were held in Provo to provide for a greater number of attendees. For the past several years the FAIR Conference was moved to a venue in Sandy, and this year (because FAIR has outgrown the Sandy venue) it is being moved back to Provo to the Utah Valley Convention Center.

The list of speakers this year is fantastic. This year’s line of up scholars includes Ronald Barney of the LDS Church historical department who will speak on “Joseph Smith’s Visions.” Morris Thurston will present the “Kidnapping” at Palestine Grove: Missouri’s Final Attempt to Extradite Joseph Smith. Don Bradley will speak on The Original Context of the First Vision Narrative: 1820s or 1830s.

Salt Lake Tribune humor columnist, Robert Kirby will present, Why It is Important to Laugh at Ourselves, and Lynne Wilson’s topic will be, Was Joseph a Product of the Second Great Awakening? Dr. Mark Alan Wright, a specialist in Mesoamerian Archaeology will present, Heartland as Hinterland: The Mesoamerican Core and North American Periphery of Book of Mormon Geography. Rosalynde Welch will discuss “Disenchanted Mormonism,” and Seth Payne will speak on “Why Mormonism Matters: Pastoral Apologetics and the LDS Doubter.”

Ralph Hancock will reflect on “Mormonism and the New Liberalism: The Inescapability of Political Apologetics,” Maxine Hanks will present, “Working With the Church: Another Narrative,” and Daniel Peterson (a perennial favorite) will address, “Toward a More Effective Apologetics.”

In addition to this awesome list of speakers and subjects, the FAIR Conference will host two panel discussions: Charity Never Faileth: Seeking Sisterhood Amid Different Perspectives on Mormon Feminism, with Neylan McBain, Valerie Hudson, Wendy Ulrich, Kris Fredrickson, and Maxine Hanks.

The second panel is entitled, The Loss and Rekindling of Faith, and will include panelists, Bill Reel, Don Bradley, Janet L. Eyring, and Maxine Hanks.

Anyone interested in Mormon studies should attend. Early-bird discounts are still available until July 28 but even if you miss the discount, the “study and faith” you’ll gain from this assemblage of speakers will be worth far more than the price of the ticket. You can get all the info here, and I hope to see you there.

*This article was also published in Meridian.

Letters to a Former Missionary Companion – Letter 5

Letters to a Former Missionary Companion – Letter 4

Letters to a Former Missionary Companion – Letter 3

Letters to a Former Missionary Companion – Letter 2

Letters to a Former Missionary Companion

Joseph Smith’s Greatest Hits

Betrayal and Our Relationship with Church History

Testimony Damage and the Problem of Assumptions pt. 1

FAIR Has New Name/Shaken Faith Syndrome Updated.

A Gathering of Study and Faith

Our Friends

Follow Us

Donate to FAIR

Mike Ash

Footer

Our Friends

Follow Us

Donate to FAIR