FAIR

Mike Ash

How to Read Ancient Nephite

by

Ash (newer) PictureAs pointed out in the last installment, Joseph Smith was not a “translator” in the Academic sense. He couldn’t read ancient languages. Somehow, through the power of God, he was able to convert the Nephite writings into the scriptural English of his day.

According to witnesses who were close enough to Joseph to get a feel for the translation process, Joseph would “see” the English translation of the Nephite text when he put is face into the hat with the seer stone. Anyone who tries to copy this process—with or without a hat—will quickly discover that you cannot see (let alone read) any text so close to your face. In the darkness of the hat it seems likely that the English text which Joseph saw was in his “mind’s eye.” Technically vision occurs in the brain. Yes, our eyes send the data to the brain, but the brain converts the signals to form the things we see.

Through the power of God—and Joseph’s faith that the seer stone in the hat operated through the power of God—Joseph’s mind was able to create an English “translation” of the Nephite text. The question becomes: What is the relationship between the English words that Joseph saw and what was written on the plates?

Professional linguist Royal Skousen is the foremost expert on the original Book of Mormon document— the document written by the scribes as Joseph Smith dictated the text. He has discovered subtle clues in the way that the scribes wrote—and stumbled or corrected as they wrote—which reveal some fascinating insights about the translation process. Textual clues, for instance, suggest that Joseph saw blocks of texts which included at least twenty words at a time.[i]

Sometimes, Joseph had trouble pronouncing proper names and had to spell them out (possibly the only examples wherein words outside of Joseph’s environment appeared in his translation tools). We have evidence of this not only from witnesses to the process but also from textual evidence. For example, when Joseph came to the name “Coriantumr,” Oliver Cowdery—his scribe—wrote “Coriantummer” but then crossed it out and wrote the correct spelling. There is no way Cowdery would have known this without Joseph offering the correct spelling. This confirms that Joseph actually saw the spelling of at least some Book of Mormon names.[ii]

At other times, Joseph was surprised by what he read. According to the manuscript evidence Joseph did not know in advance what the text was going to say. For example, he was apparently surprised by chapter breaks and book divisions. At such breaks he would tell his scribe to write “Chapter.” Only later did he discover that in some instances this was not a chapter break but a break for a wholly distinct book.[iii]

Some have argued that the English translation is a nearly a word-for-word conversion from reformed Egyptian to English. Others have argued that Joseph was given general impressions about what the plates contained and he framed those impressions from within his own worldview and according to his own language and gospel understanding.

Some, including myself, take a position that falls in between these two options. I agree, in fact, with the position articulated by Brant Gardner is his book, The Gift and the Power, wherein he argues that Joseph Smith translated by way of a “functional equivalence.” In this model, argues Gardner, the translation “adheres to the organization and structures of the original but is more flexible in the vocabulary. It allows the target language [English] to use words that are not direct equivalents of the source words [reformed Egyptian], but which attempt to preserve the intent of the source text.”[iv]

Steven Pinker, a non-LDS professor of Psychology at Harvard, argues that all humans (and perhaps many animals) have a natural language of thought, or “mentalese.” When we communicate we convert our mentalese into whatever language we speak. All of us have had many experiences where we’ve struggled to come up with the right words to convey our thoughts or have spoken words which didn’t accurately or fully translate the thoughts we hoped to impart. That’s part of the difficulty of translating mentalese into words.

In the “functional equivalence” model for the Book of Mormon translation, Joseph was given the divine mentalese impression or imprint of what was on the plates, but he had to formulate that mentalese into words of his language and understanding (the obvious exceptions being unknown proper nouns such as Book of Mormon names). Once Joseph’s mind formed a functional English equivalent to the mentalese imprint, the English words appeared and Joseph was able to read them off to his scribe. The resulting English translation would accurately transmit the meaning of the text but with words and phrases that may not have existed among the Nephites.

As Dr. Stephen Ricks, professor of Hebrew and Semitic languages suggests,

A reasonable scenario for the method of translating the Book of Mormon… would be one in which the …seerstone and the interpreters… enhanced his [Joseph’s] capacity to understand (as one who knows a second language well enough to be able to think in it understands) the sense of the words and phrases on the plates as well as to grasp the relation of these words to each other. However, the actual translation was Joseph’s alone and the opportunity to improve it in grammar and word choice still remained open. Thus, while it would be incorrect to minimize the divine element in the process of translation of the Book of Mormon, it would also be misleading and potentially hazardous to deny the human factor.[v]

Elder John A. Widtsoe likewise believed that Joseph, as a “translator,” would first have perceived thoughts and then would have attempted to reproduce those thoughts correctly “‘with every inflection of meaning, in the best words at his command…. This makes it unavoidable that much of the translator himself remains in his translation.’”[vi] Likewise, Elder Widtsoe wrote,

The language of the English Book of Mormon is to a large degree the language of the Prophet as used in his every day conversation on religious subjects, but brightened, illuminated, and dignified by the inspiration under which he worked.[vii]

The fact that Joseph had to incorporate his own language into the translation pretty much guarantees that some English words and phrases are unable to fully express Nephite words and phrases.  We find the same problem in Academic translations.Translators struggle to best express ideas from one language into another language. But, some will ask, why didn’t God just give Joseph a perfect English translation? In Shaken Faith Syndrome I quote LDS scholar Benjamin McGuire who wrote:

If we take the English language as a basis, it seems quite possible, for example, for God to create a text that could perfectly convey the meaning which God intended for it to convey. But, it would be to a specific audience. More than that, it would be to an audience of one (and even that, it would be to an audience of one at a particular time and place). No one else would be capable of achieving the same meaning from that text. Is this a weakness on the part of God? No. It is a weakness on the part of our ability to communicate. So who was the intended audience? Let’s say that it was Joseph Smith. Our ability then, to understand the perfection of the text which God intended, would largely be determined by how closely we resemble Joseph Smith in 1828—how closely our language resembles his, how closely our culture environment resembles his, how similar our intertextual exposure resembles his.[viii]

Any time that words are translated from one language to another language, problems can be compounded because words can have different meanings depending on a variety of factors. Despite what we may think, words do not typically have simple meanings by themselves; they only have meaning in the context of other words, the time and culture in which they were written, how the author may have used words as idioms, etc. For example, the word “gay” would mean something different to a twenty-first century American than it would to a nineteenth century American. In English we can catch a nap as well as catch a fish—but the word “catch” means something different in each example, and the difference in meaning is determined by context.

As non-LDS Hebrew scholar Joel Hoffman explains in regards to reading the Bible in ancient Hebrew: “While it’s hard to understand the text as a whole without knowing what the words mean, just knowing the meaning of the words… is not nearly enough to understand the text. More generally, a ‘literal’ translation is almost always just a ‘bad’ or ‘wrong’ translation, inasmuch as it fails to give a reader of the translation an accurate understanding or appreciation of the original.”[ix]

Anyone who has ever translated words from one language to another knows that there are inherent and inescapable difficulties. Sometimes, for example, there is no equivalent word in another language. For instance, I understand that the Japanese language has no word which simply means “brother.” Instead, there are different words for “older brother” and “younger brother.” This presents an interesting problem when translating the “brother of Jared” into Japanese. Many other such examples could be found. Word-for-word translations sometimes yield nonsense or even humorous results. If we translated the German word “Kindergarten” literally into English, for example, we would get “child garden” rather than the intended meaning of a school that precedes first grade.

Joseph understood that Book of Mormon passages could be improved and made several clarifications in subsequent additions. Brigham Young understood the problems of translation as well when he said: “…I will… venture to say that if the Book of Mormon were now to be re-written, in many instances it would be materially different from the present translation.”[x]

Understanding the complexities of translation will help us navigate the Book of Mormon when we attempt to understand the book as an actual ancient text, written by real people who lived and interacted with their own environments, as well as when we attempt to grapple with those critical issues—such as the inclusion of King James language and nineteenth-century revivalist terminology—that have caused some testimonies to stumble.

[i] Royal Skousen, “How Joseph Smith Translated the Book of Mormon: Evidence from the Original Manuscript,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 7:1, 25.

[ii] Ibid., 27.

[iii] Ibid., 27-28.

[iv] Brant A. Gardner, The Gift and Power of God: Translating the Book of Mormon(Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2011), 156.

[v] Stephen D. Ricks, “Joseph Smith’s Translation of the Book of Mormon,” (accesse 8 July 2013).

[vi] John A. Widtsoe, Gospel Interpretations (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1947), quoted in Ricks, “Translation of the Book of Mormon,” 207, n. 8.

[vii] John A. Widtsoe, Joseph Smith: Seeker of Truth (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1951), 42.

[viii] Michael R. Ash, Shaken Faith Syndrome: Strengthening One’s Testimony in the Face of Criticism and Doubt 2nd Ed. (Redding CA: February 2013), 56.

[ix] Hoffman, Joel M. (2010-02-02). And God Said: How Translations Conceal the Bible’s Original Meaning (p. 101). Macmillan. Kindle Edition.

[x] Journal of Discourses 9:311.

*This article also appeared in Meridan Magazine.

Translating the Book of Mormon

by

Ash (newer) PictureHow did Joseph Smith translate the Book of Mormon? Joseph didn’t share many details of the translation process other than the fact that he received the translation by the gift and power of God. In order to develop any theories on how it was done we must to turn to clues from those who witnessed the events. When we examine those details we quickly discover that the translation process may not have been like what many members have envisioned.

As I began to write this article (based on my promise in the last installment) a friend of mine coincidentally published a detailed discussion of this topic in the new Interpreter on-line journal so I’ll provide a link at the end of this article for those who want more depth on this fascinating subject.

The average member’s mental image of Joseph translating the plates is generally formed from artwork in Church magazines and comments from Sunday school teachers rather than from a critical examination of the historical evidence.

Unfortunately most artists are not historians and may produce beautiful drawings and paintings that are based on misassumptions. Some wonderful LDS artwork, for example, depicts Caucasian-looking Nephites with romance-novel cover-model physiques wielding broadswords and Viking-like helmets—none of which fits the actual images that could be created for how early American warriors would have looked or the weapons they would have utilized.

The average painting of the Savior typically falls victim to similar problems with features generally based on the cultural or theological perspectives of the artist rather than on historical accuracy.[i] Da Vinci’s “Last Supper,” for example, depicts European-looking men sitting at a regular table instead of Middle Eastern men reclining at the low tables of Jesus’ day. An Italian Renaissance portrait of Mary and the baby Jesus has a Renaissance castle and town in the background, and the 1569 “Census of Bethlehem” by a Belgian artist depicts snow and ice-skaters in what appears to be a Renaissance Belgium village.[ii]

Some Church art of the Book of Mormon translation shows Joseph studiously looking at the plates with one finger on the engraved letters as if he could actually read what each character said. Some show Joseph reading the characters to his scribe Oliver Cowdery with the plates exposed in full view of them both. Other images show Joseph dictating to a scribe sitting on the opposite side of a curtain. A few images show Joseph looking at the plates through the Nephite Interpreters. All of these images are incorrect.

First, while a curtain may have been used between Joseph and Martin Harris (the first Book of Mormon scribe) the majority of the text was translated in the open while the plates were covered with a cloth. The plates were never in open view and were only exposed to others as instructed by the Lord when they were shown to witnesses. A curtain or blanket appears to have been draped across the entry to the living room at the Whitmer house (where much of the translation took place) in order to give Joseph and his scribe privacy from curious on-lookers while they worked.[iii] This curtain was apparently not present all of the time, however, because other Whitmer family members were witnesses to the translation process.

While some LDS artwork doesn’t depict any translating tools, most informed members are aware of the Nephite “Interpreters” that Moroni put in the stone box with the plates so Joseph would have a tool for translating. According to those who handled the Interpreters they were like large spectacles with stones or crystals in place of lenses.

Many of the details on the Book of Mormon translation method become lost or muddied over time. Part of this confusion was the result of the fact that some early Latter-day Saints began referring to the Interpreters as the “Urim and Thummim”—a reference to a device in the Old Testament that was associated with the High Priest’s breastplate and used for divination or for receiving answers from God (see Exodus 28:30).The early Saints didn’t think that the Nephite Interpreters were theUrim and Thummim mentioned in the Bible but were another Urim and Thummim given for translating the plates.

Unfortunately the Interpreters didn’t come with instructions and Joseph was apparently left on his own as to how to use them. This is when his cultural background came in handy.

It’s important first to return to D&C 1:24 which tells us that God speaks to His children (including the prophets) in “in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.” Our “language” includes more than words, but also how we understand the world around us. My “language” is different than the language of Joseph Smith, or Moses, or Gandhi. In Abraham’s day it was believed that the disc-shaped earth was covered with an inverted heavenly bowl that contained a heavenly ocean. Windows would open periodically to let out the rains.

In Joseph Smith’s day many of the frontiersmen in his vicinity believed that divining rods and seer stones could be used to find water, lost objects, and treasures. The ability to divine was generally considered to be a God-given gift and was practiced by devoutly religious men and women.

Long prior to acquiring the plates the young Joseph Smith was a believer in divination. In fact, he and his friends and family believed that he had the God-given gift to find lost objects by way of a seer stone. Seer stones were thought to be special stones in which one could see the location of the object for which one was divining. The seer stones were related to crystal balls or the practice of looking into pools of water or mirrors to divine information (such as the Queen’s magic mirror in the Snow White tale).

While this seems strange in modern times, in Joseph’s day many intelligent, educated, and religious people believed that such real powers existed in the forces of nature.  Well into the nineteenth-century, for instance, a number of people believed in alchemy—the belief that baser metals could be turned into gold. Some of New England’s practicing alchemists were graduates from Yale and Harvard and one alchemist was the Chief Justice of Massachusetts.[iv]

In order to see inside of the stone, it was sometimes placed between one’s eye and the flicker of a candle, or into something dark—such as an upside down hat—to shield out all light.  It was believed that in such an environment a seer (someone who “sees”) could stare into the stone for the information one was seeking.

When Joseph first acquired the Nephite Interpreters he also tried placing them into a hat to shield the light.  Although he apparently managed to translate the 116 lost pages by this method he complained that he had a hard time fitting the spectacles into the hat and that the two lenses were set too far apart—and were apparently made for someone with a broader face. It gave him eyestrain when he stared into the lenses.

After Joseph lost the first 116 pages, the Interpreters and his gift to translate were temporarily taken away. Eventually, after repenting, Joseph’s gift was returned but instead of using the Nephite Interpreters Joseph was allowed to use his seer stone to finish the translating process. In Joseph’s “language” the seer stone had the same properties as the Interpreters and was therefore also a Urim and Thummin. So when many early records speak of Joseph translating by way of the Urim and Thummim they are generally referring to the seer stone and not the Interpreters. Unfortunately, through time, members had forgotten about the seer stone (as divination become less accepted by society) and eventually most members assumed that the only Urim and Thummim Joseph used was the Interpreters.

The seer stone made the translating process much easier and we read that Joseph would sit for hours, his face in the hat—to obscure the light—while he saw the English translation of the Book of Mormon text that he dictated to his scribes.

While such an image may shock modern members, we have to remember that the Lord works through the culture of His children as speaks to them in language (words, symbols, and methods) through which they can understand. If one can accept that Nephite Interpreters could be used to translate an ancient document, is it really a wonder that God might have prepared Joseph with the cultural belief in seer stones so that he would be receptive to the workings of the Interpreters or that he believed that his seer stone was a Urim and Thummin like the Interpreters.

In reality the major difference between the average-member-view of the Book of Mormon translation (Joseph looked into the crystals in the Interpreters) vs the historical view (Joseph looked into a seer stone in a hat) is the “hat”—one is a stone or crystal out of the hat; the other is in a hat.

Joseph, of course, was not alone in believing in unscientific things in a world that didn’t have today’s advantages of scientific knowledge. The Bible records several instances or forms of divining as practiced by the righteous followers of God. We read that Aaron had a magical rod (Exodus 7:9–12). Jacob also used magical rods to cause Laban’s cattle to produce spotted and speckled offspring (see Genesis 30:37–39). In Numbers 5 we read about a magical test for adultery in which the priest would give the suspect a potion to drink. If the woman was guilty, her thigh would swell (v. 11–13, 21). The Old Testament records that the Joseph had a silver cup by which “he divineth” (Genesis 44:2, 5). This convention, known as hydromancy, was also practiced by the surrounding pagans. The casting of lots (sortilege) to choose a new Apostle (see Acts 1:26) was known and practiced by the pagans of Jesus’ day. Even some of Christ’s miracles were similar to the magic of surrounding pagans. Jesus’ healing of the deaf man by putting his fingers in his ears (Mark 7:33–35) and Jesus’ healing of the blind man by touching his eyes with spittle and clay were also common pagan practices.

Although the historical picture of the Book of Mormon translation process is not as commonly known to some members as it perhaps should be, despite the cries of critics the Church hasn’t been hiding this information. It has been mentioned for instance in the Ensign,[v] (one instance in which the talk was originally given to Mission Presidents[vi]), the Friend,[vii] as well as other LDS-targeted publications.

As we continue our discussion of scriptures and translation in subsequent installments it’s important to note that from the historical record we also learn that Joseph translated in plain sight of other witnesses and that, because his face was buried in a hat to exclude light, it would have been impossible for him to be reading the text of another document while he dictated the translation.

For those who would like to read a much more detailed paper on this topic I recommend Roger Nicholson’s new Interpreter article, “The Spectacles, the Stone, the Hat, and the Book: A Twenty-first Century Believer’s View of the Book of Mormon Translation” as well as Brant Gardner’s award winning book The Gift and Power: Translating the Book of Mormon.


[iii] “David Whitmer Interview with Chicago Tribune, 15 December 1885,” in Early Mormon Documents, ed., Dan Vogel (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2003), 5:153.

[iv] Cited in Shaken Faith Syndrome: Strengthening One’s Testimony in the Face of Criticism and Doubt, 2nd ed. (Redding CA: FAIR, 2013), 282.

[v] Richard Lloyd Anderson, “By the Gift and Power of God,” Ensign (September 1977), 80; Gerrit Dirkmaat, “Great and Marvelous are the Revelations of God,”Ensign (January 2013), 46 (while Dirkmaat doesn’t mention the hat, he does explain that Joseph sometimes used a seer stone [also referred to as a Urim and Thummim] to receive revelation.)

[vi] Russell M. Nelson, “A Treasured Testament,” Ensign (July 1993). (Like Anderson [above] Nelson does mention both the seer stone and hat).

[vii] “A Peaceful Heart,” Friend (September 1974). (This article doesn’t mention the hat but does mention the “egg-shaped, brown rock… called a seer stone.”)

* This article was cross-posted from Meridian Magazine.

The Difficulty of Translating Scripture

by

Ash (newer) PictureWith the exception of some sections from the Doctrine and Covenants, we do not have the original manuscripts for any of our scriptures. All original documents for the Old and New Testaments are gone. What we have are copies (and usually copies of copies) or interpretations of copies. Likewise, Moroni’s golden plates are no longer in our possession. Even the original Book of Mormon translation manuscript (only 28% of which has survived) is a “translation” of the ancient Nephite book and not the original document.

No document was present when Joseph Smith received the Book of Moses by revelation. Section 7 of the D&C was given as revelation wherein Joseph saw a translation from the “parchment” which was “written and hid up by” the Apostle John. Finally, when it comes to the Book Abraham, the text we have in our scriptures is a “translation” of information that was either contained on some portion of the Joseph Smith Papyri that has been lost or, like the Book of Moses and text from the Apostle John, was given by direct revelation without the presence of the original source document.

Without the original “autographs” we can never be positive that we have the precise and pristine words penned by the original prophets and scriptural authors. When we compare ancient copies of New Testament books, for example, we find a number of differences. Generally, such differences don’t affect the integrity of the text, but there are instances where omissions or additions do change the meaning of some verses.[i]

The translation of the scriptures into modern languages presents additional problems that can influence the meaning of the text. A translator attempts to convey the meaning of the original by selecting words and phrases that make the most sense to his audience. This becomes especially problematic with ancient languages wherein we can’t ask the meaning of phrases from those who lived in that culture. But even when we do know what they meant, it is often difficult to translate precise meanings from one culture (or an ancient culture) into another (or modern) culture.

For example, candles were invented in China in around 200 BC and were not known in biblical lands until about 400 AD[ii]—long after the books in the Bible were written. Despite the absence of candles in biblical antiquity, the Old and New Testaments refer to candles seventeen times. “Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick,” we read in Matthew 5:15. In Zephaniah we find that the Hebrew word ner is translated as “candle” in the King James Version Bible. “And it shall come to pass at that time that I will search Jerusalem with candles…” (1:12). The New Revised Standard Version Bible (NRSV) translates ner as “lamps” and the New Living Translation Bible (NLT) as “lanterns.”

In a twenty-first century context, not one of these words is precisely correct. The ancient people of the Bible used oil lamps. For modern readers in the United States a “lamp” (NSRV) refers to what you might have on your night stand or in your living room. A “lantern” (NLT) would typically evoke an image of a camping lantern. Even in the early seventeenth century, when the King James Bible was translated, lamps and lanterns would have looked different than the oil lamps of biblical times.

In ancient days the oil lamp was little more than a shallow clay cup of oil with a wick. Even if the King James translators would have used “oil lamp” we wouldn’t get a fully accurate meaning of the original. As non-LDS Hebrew scholar Joel Hoffman explains:

“The word-level translation suggests that if ner means ‘oil lamp,’ then the only possible translation is ‘oil lamp.’ But here’s the problem. When the original text uses ner, the point is something readily at hand, a common object used by default to light up dark spaces (among other purposes). … on a concept level, all three translations [KJV, NSRV, & NLT] are better than oil lamp.’”[iii]

Biblical numbers frequently present problems for translators as well. Ancient societies often had many “round” numbers that were not literal but conveyed a concept. “I’ve told you a thousand times” doesn’t mean I’ve counted those thousand instances but rather that I’ve told you the same information on many repeated occasions. Modern Americans also utilize round numbers such as 5, 10, 100, or “a dozen.”[iv] If we want a dozen eggs or a dozen roses, we are talking about literal numbers. If we have “a dozen” reasons not to attend an opera we would be speaking figuratively compared to if we said we had “twelve” reasons not to attend.

Near Eastern ancient cultures didn’t know the concept of zero and were challenged when it came to multiplying large numbers. As a result, frequently used round numbers were the products of small numbers (such as two times three and three times four). Thus we find frequent round numbers such as 6, 10, 12, 40, and 70. These numbers do not always reflect accurate counts.

Much of the Bible is in symbolic language designed to poetically convey important moral concepts rather than to describe accurate history. The round numbers mentioned above, for example, often conveyed symbolic meanings. Four represented the created world: four winds, corners of the earth, seasons, directions, and types of living creatures. Seven and Twelve symbolized completeness. Forty and Seventy represented limited and comprehensive quantities of time and were also not to be taken literally in all circumstances.[v]

Understanding the problem faced by translators of ancient texts, we can more fully appreciate Article of Faith 8: “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly….” We may have a tendency to think this refers to how different Christian faiths interpret scriptural passages in different ways. Or we may believe the “translated correctly” refers to copy errors (both additions and deletions) that took place as the biblical texts were preserved through the years by different scribes. The problem of “translated correctly” also refers, however, to the fact that translating from one language (or culture) to another is bound to cause some ambiguities and misinterpretations. We have to be careful to understand ancient texts from within the context of the culture that produced the text.

But what about those scriptures revealed through the instrumentality of Joseph Smith? Surely God would give him accurate translations of those ancient texts? That will be the discussion of our next installment.

*This article also appears on Meridian Magazine.

[iii] Joel M. Hoffman, And God Said: How Translations Conceal the Bible’s Original Meaning (Macmillian, 2010, Kindle Edition), 84.

[iv] Ibid., 89.

[v] The Oxford Companion to the Bible, eds., Bruce Metzger and Michael D. Coogan (Oxford University Press, 1993), 563-564.

Balancing Secular and Faith-Based Scripture Study

by

Ash (newer) PictureAnyone who owns a pendulum powered clock—such as many grandfather or wall hanging clocks—knows that the regulation of the pendulum needs to be tweaked in order for the clock to keep accurate time. On the bottom of the pendulum is an adjusting nut that raises and lowers the “bob” (the disc-shaped weight that makes the pendulum swing from side to side).

If the bob is raised too high, the swing-angle of the pendulum will be too narrow and the clock will run too fast. If the bob is lowered too far, the swing-angle will be too wide and the clock will run too slowly. With a bit of experience, some tweaking, and another timepiece for comparison, the adjusting nut can correctly set the swing to ensure reasonably accurate time.

Our approach to the scriptures should also find a balance between how literally we accept what was recorded by past generations and how modern scholarship understands those past generation in light of history and science. Without balance, our spiritual growth may be stifled or our testimonies could even be put at potential risk.

 Rejecting the Secular

As noted in a previous installment, Latter-day Saints should not take an inerrantist view to the scriptures. We know that prophets are fallible men with divine callings and that scriptures contain mistakes. If we take a literalist view on everything that we read in the scriptures we set ourselves up for potential testimony damage if we come to realize that the best scholarship—both inside and outside of the Church—argues that a strictly literal reading is untenable.

Revealed religion has almost nothing to say about the physics of the world, and little about its history either. As Galileo said, quoting one of the pope’s cardinals, the scriptures “teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heavens go.”[i]

Science can tell us little or nothing about the meaning of life but speaks volumes about the physics and history of this planet and people. While we may assume that the scriptures speak on scientific issues this assumption is typically not warranted (with a few exceptions).

Most of our scriptures were written in pre-scientific times and incorporate not only the pre-critical assumptions of those who recorded the scriptures but sometimes include fanciful narratives to convey divine principals. Joseph Fielding Smith once wrote:

“Even the most devout and sincere believers in the Bible realize that it is, like most any other book, filled with metaphor, simile, allegory, and parable, which no intelligent person could be compelled to accept in a literal sense. …

“The Lord has not taken from those who believe in his word the power of reason. He expects every man who takes his “yoke” upon him to have common sense enough to accept a figure of speech in its proper setting, and to understand that the holy scriptures are replete with allegorical stories, faith-building parables, and artistic speech. …”[ii]

“Despite divine inspiration,” notes LDS scholar Stephen Robinson, “the biblical text is not uninfluenced by human language and not immune to negative influences from its human environment, and there is no guarantee that the revelations given to ancient prophets have been perfectly preserved…. Thus, critical study of the Bible is warranted to help allow for, and suggest corrections of, human errors of formulation, transmission, translation, and interpretation of the ancient records.”[iii]

In my opinion, one of the most revealing scriptures for helping us understand how God communicates with His children is found in D&C 1:24:

“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.”

I’ll discuss this point in greater depth later in this series, and will return to it repeatedly because of its importance. Whether Heavenly Father speaks to you or me, or to prophets, or to those who recorded or transmitted scripture, all humans are only able to understand those communications from within their own worldviews (our “language”) which would include vocabulary, culture, and even preconceived (perhaps even erroneous) ideas about science, the universe, physics, other people, and so on.

By applying the tools of scholarship and science to our scripture studies, we can better recognize how ancient peoples would have understood revelations in the context of their own particular worldviews.

Since the days of Joseph Smith, many leaders have suggested that our scripture study include not only prayer and personal reflection, but scholarly tools as well. Joseph, for instance, studied Hebrew and organized the School of the Prophets so he, and other Church leaders, could utilize the scholarship in his day to learn more about the ancient prophets.

LDS Apostle, Elder John A. Widtsoe likewise wrote:

“In the field of modern thought the so-called higher criticism of the Bible has played an important part. The careful examination of the Bible in the light of our best knowledge of history, languages and literary form, has brought to light many facts not sensed by the ordinary reader of the Scriptures. Based upon the facts thus gathered, scholars have in the usual manner of science proceeded to make inferences, some of considerable, others of low probability of truth… To Latter-day Saints there can be no objection to the careful and critical study of the scriptures, ancient or modern, provided only that it be an honest study—a search for truth….”[iv]

Rejecting the Literal

Relying solely on secular interpretations of scriptural events presents its own set of problems. A strictly secular approach would deny the Resurrection, miracles, and divine communication from on high. Science currently tells us that such things don’t happen. Claims of the miraculous—including healings, raising the dead, and the visitation from angels or long-deceased prophets, must be taken on faith.

Approaching the scriptures from a strictly secular perspective also takes a superficial approach to the purpose of scriptures.  While scholarship can more accurately tell us about the people who wrote the scriptures and how their stories would have been understood in ancient contexts, it cannot reveal the deeper meaning of those records—those verses that speak to our souls and impel us to change our hearts and desires to align with God.

“With minor exceptions,” notes Robinson, the Bible is “…not to be treated in an ultimately naturalistic manner. God’s participation is seen to be significant both in the events themselves and in the process of their being recorded. His activity is thus one of the effects to be reckoned with in interpreting the events and in understanding the texts that record them.”[v]

God had a purpose when He inspired biblical authors to record scripture and impelled dedicated followers to preserve the scriptures for future generations. Despite the fact that divinely revealed doctrine can be draped in a mantel of fallible human narrative and imperfect worldviews, the spiritual messages can nevertheless touch the souls of those who study the scriptures with the companionship of the Holy Ghost.

The scriptures not only act as a witness to God’s dealings with mankind, but they also testify to the divinity of the Savior and the reality of the Atonement. Elder David A. Bednar suggests three reasons why we should study the scriptures: Because of our covenants, because of our need for direction, and as a prerequisite for personal revelation.[vi]

Per the sacramental prayers, when we renew our covenants, we are asked to “always remember” Christ. We can facilitate this remembrance by studying the scriptures.

Elder Bednar notes that in Alma 37 we are taught that “personal prayer and scripture study provide direction in our lives just as the Liahona provided guidance to Lehi and his family in the wilderness.”

Lastly, and most importantly, scripture has the power to transform our hearts and minds so we can receive personal revelation. If we invite the Holy Ghost into our lives as we pray and study the scriptures, immersing ourselves in the scriptures helps open that conduit for personal communication with our Heavenly Father.

My personal approach to the scriptures is to find a balance between the secular approach and the faith-approach. A secular approach attempts to harmonize what scriptural records claim and what we know about history, physics, and the ancient world. It can not only shed light on our scripture study, but it can make sense of some scriptural references that do not accord with science, archaeology, or the historical record.

A faith-based approach to scriptures that accepts some literal interpretations of specific events (such as the Resurrection) brings meaning to my life, helps guide me, helps open the door to personal revelation and teaches me that some things must be taken on faith in spite of current scientific knowledge.

This balancing point will undoubtedly vary with each individual and may shift from time to time based on moments of secular or spiritual insight. Some readers may find my balancing point to be too liberal; perhaps for others, too conservative. In subsequent articles I will try to show how I arrive at my current position and how I find balance and enlightenment by harmonizing the two.

* This article also appeared in Meridian Magazine.

[i] Quoted in www.oratoriosanfilippo.org/galileo-baronio-english.pdf

[ii] Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3 (SLC: Bookcraft, 1956): 188-190.

[iii] Stephen E. Robinson, “Bible Scholarship,” Encyclopedia of Mormonism

[iv] John A. Widtsoe, In Search of Truth: Comments on the Gospel and Modern Thought (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1930), 81-82,.

[v] Robinson, “Bible Scholarship.”

[vi] David A. Bednar, “Understanding the Importance of Scripture Study,”.

Science vs. Religion?

by

Ash Picture“One of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may,” (Discourses of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 199)

In order to approach the scriptures from a realistic perspective we need to take a side trip into the secular world of science and scholarship. Wise and informed Latter-day Saints recognize that truth is truth regardless the source. The very fact that Joseph Smith admonished his followers to receive truth from all sources acknowledges that not all truth comes through spiritual mediations. In reality, the majority of truth comes through secular sources (perhaps sparked—even if unconsciously—from divine inspiration).

Although religion can open our hearts to receive the most important truths, the percentage of truths we learn from religion is miniscule compared to the truths that are discovered by secular means. Without secular truths we wouldn’t have cars, medications, clothes, computers, or sports. We are privileged to live in a world where science has made tremendous leaps in our understanding of nature, history, medicine, and technology.

In a previous installment I explained that Roman Catholics take a three-legged tripod-like approach to determining truth—Scripture, Tradition, and the Pope. I believe that we Latter-day Saints are asked to take a four-legged approach to truth, like the four legs of a stool. These would include: Scripture, Prophets, Personal Revelation, and Reason. By utilizing the methodologies for all four of these tools, we have a better chance of accurately determining what is true.

“Each of us,” said Elder Boyd K. Packer, “must accommodate the mixture of reason and revelation in our lives. The gospel not only permits it, but requires it.”[i] The Lord has instructed us to “seek learning even by study and also by faith” (D&C 88:118), and we are counseled to not only learn gospel principles, but secular theories in astronomy, history, geology, archaeology, and politics (v. 79).

Science, however, does not know everything and sometimes gets things wrong. In a way, I hate to make such claims and I’ll explain why below. It is a fact, however, that despite great advances in scientific acumen, we are a long way from knowing everything about the human body, the heavens, the earth, or our earthly co-inhabitants. I have the utmost respect for science and scholarship and have faith (no pun intended) that science will eventually arrive at all possible temporal truths. For the foreseeable future, however, there are many areas of science that reside in a state of flux, are hindered by un-resolvable variant interpretations, are un-knowable with current scientific tools.

Unfortunately, too many Latter-day Saints (as well as members of other religions) retreat into anti-science and anti-intellectual positions when they think that their doctrines (which are typically assumptions rather than doctrines) are challenged by science or secular scholarship. The claim that “science doesn’t know everything,” is the frequent leitmotif of those who are anti-science.

A related problem is the “God-of-the-Gaps” fallacy. Some claim that if science cannot explain a thing then the gap is filled by the workings of God (or is even proof of God). Isaac Newton, for example, recognized that there had to be some degree of gravitational interaction between Earth and Mars as they passed each other in their individual orbits. Newton believed that this interaction could be devastating to the solar system if not for God’s intervention. He was also unable to see any reason why most of the planets circled the Sun on a similar plane and in the same direction other than by divine decree. Since there appeared to be no scientific explanation for what he observed (a “gap” in the available knowledge) Newton attributed the actions to God.

The problem with such an approach is that these gaps are often closed with increased scientific knowledge. There is a difference between recognizing that science doesn’t have all the answers and claiming that where science is silent, we see proof of God.

There’s an interesting parallel to the God-of-the-Gaps problem in science, however. Since the general scientific paradigm is one that deals exclusively with what can be known empirically (there by excluding by default anything supernatural—and therefore God), all gaps in scientific knowledge are confidently seen as questions that can one day be answered by science (and not by religion).

While science is not infallible we need to be careful not to simply brush all conflicting information under the rug of “science-could-be-wrong.” Generally speaking the more established the scientific theories the more likely they are to be confirmed by various disciples of science—in a convergence of evidence—that not only depend on, but support the original theory.

The wonderful thing about science is that it is self-correcting. Some erroneous ideas or false assumptions take longer to fall than others, but with continued rigor the scientific community in general has demonstrated that mistakes, over-sights, and all other errors will eventually be replaced with superior, more adequate, and more accurate information.

It’s also important, however, to realize that “science” is not a single discipline that can be measured equally and with the same methods to check for accuracy and verisimilitude. There are “hard” sciences and “soft” sciences. Hard sciences are thenatural sciences and typically include fields like math, chemistry, and physics, whereas soft sciences are the social sciences such as psychology, history, archaeology, and anthropology.

As explained on Wikipedia: “The hard sciences are characterized as relying on quantifiable empirical data, relying on the scientific method, and focusing on accuracy and objectivity.” The soft sciences are more prone to conclusions based on interpretation.

A related aspect of the hard versus soft distinction has to do with the ease of drawing strong conclusions. In soft sciences, there are often numerous variables that might have an influence on some variable of interest, and many of those variables either may be non-quantifiable or may be quantifiable but difficult to obtain data on; but further, even with plentiful data, it may be difficult to disentangle the effects of such a large number of variables. In contrast, typically in the hard sciences there are only a few, readily identified, causative variables, making it easier to infer specific causative effects.[ii]

With the exception of “miracles” and currently un-measureable issues such as the existence of God, nearly all Mormon-related issues with which skeptics have problems, have to do with the subjectively-interpretive soft sciences rather than hard sciences.

If truth is really truth, in the end all truths in our world must harmonize. LDS scientist Henry Eyring once wrote: “Is there any conflict between science and religion? There is no conflict in the mind of God, but often there is conflict in the minds of men.”[iii]  When it comes to a conflict between what we have learned from religion and science we must step back and take a look at what the conflict is actually about. If the conflict is over core doctrines, science and scholarship can offer opinions, suggestions, and even evidence, but it cannot unseat true doctrines.

More often, however, science conflicts with our weak and often naive assumptions of history, scripture, or things which are peripheral to actual doctrines. When this happens, it is wise for us to reexamine our assumptions in light of scientific knowledge. If we do, we will generally find that we can embrace the secular scientific and scholarly teachings without abandoning the saving doctrines that have been confirmed by the Spirit.

*This article also appears in Meridian Magazine.

[i] Boyd K. Packer, “I Say Unto You, Be One” (BYU Devotional, 12 February 1991)(accessed 25 April 2013).

[ii] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science (accessed 18 December 2012).

[iii] Henry Eyring, Reflections of a Scientist (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1983), 2.

The Problem of Fundamentalism

by

When we talk about the problems of a “fundamentalist” approach to history, scriptures, and prophets, it’s important to define our terms in the context of this discussion. “Fundamentals” are certainly good things. They are the foundations of thought, theories, and structures. In the Gospel, the fundamental beliefs are the core doctrines—the belief in God and the atoning sacrifice of the Savior. Our fundamental beliefs include the knowledge that Heavenly Father communicates with us and His prophets, and that His power on earth—the priesthood—has the authority to bind us to each other and to the divine. Fundamentals are a necessary part of religion as well as science.

Fundamentalism vs. Fundamentalist

Etymology (the study of word origins, meanings, and changes) tells us that many words change meaning over time or when the word is modified. As some have noted with amusement, we “park” on a driveway but “drive” on a parkway. The words “fundamentalist” or “fundamentalism” take on completely different meanings just by adding three letters.

In current LDS language “fundamentalist” often refers to those off-shoot groups who practice plural marriage. Outside of Mormonism, the term may refer to zealous and dogmatic members of various religions or even foreign terrorists.  It may also refer to dedicated believers who take a strict black and white approach to many of their beliefs.

Christian fundamentalists (which include many Latter-day Saints) generally believe (perhaps tacitly or unconsciously) that the Bible or other scriptures are inerrant (or near inerrant), that truth comes solely from spiritual sources (perhaps defined as prophets and/or scriptures), and that science and scholarship should conform to their beliefs and never the other way around.

Most of our Protestant brothers and sisters, for example, believe (at least from an institutional standpoint) in sola scripture. This doctrine teaches that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and that all other authorities which help govern Christian life, are subordinate to the Bible. If the Bible is the absolute authority on Christ’s teachings, then it should contain no errors.

Our Catholic brothers and sisters, on the other hand, include not only Sacred Scripture into their theology, but also Sacred Tradition (the transmission of truths from generation to generation as well as apostolic succession), and Sacred Magisterium (or the infallible teachings of the Pope). Some have described this approach like the legs of a tripod; all three components maintain balance and insure the purity of Christ’s original doctrines.

While the above briefly describes Protestant and Catholic teachings that are more complex than can be covered in this short column, it is interesting to note that although Latter-day Saints don’t officially accept inerrant or infallible prophets and scriptures, some members seem to respond to challenging issues as if we did. To avoid any ambiguity, I want to make this clear—LDS doctrine does not teach that scriptures or prophets are inerrant or infallible.

Mistaken Assumption of Infallibility

The mistaken assumption of infallibility is likely the by-product of unexamined traditions and a misunderstanding of authoritative comments. I spend more time on this topic in my book Shaken Faith Syndrome, but I wish to highlight a few quotes from leaders who have addressed this topic.

“I make no claim of infallibility,” said President Spencer W. Kimball.[1]  “We make no claim of infallibility or perfection in the prophets, seers, and revelators,” said Elder James E. Faust. Elder George Q. Cannon taught, “the First Presidency cannot claim, individually or collectively, infallibility.”[2] “We respect and venerate” the prophet, said Elder Charles W. Penrose, but “we do not believe that his personal views or utterances are revelations from God.”[3]

Some members have trouble accepting the fact that prophets have human weaknesses and can make mistakes. Prophets are not fax machines for the Word of God. Like all humans they must interpret and convey impressions through imperfect and incomplete human language and understanding. As Brigham Young once explained, there “isn’t a single revelation” given “that is perfect in its fulness.” God speaks “to us in a manner to meet our capacities.”[4]

Not every word spoken by a prophet should be considered scripture. In 2007 the Church posted the following on the LDS.org website:

“Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency …and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles… counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture…, official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.”[5]

Do Prophets Make Mistakes?

We must realize that prophets are just one of the many tools God utilizes in His plan to lead us back home. Prophets have the keys to the priesthood and can receive revelation and instruction for the entire Church. God’s ultimate plan, however, is thatwe, individually, come to Him through personal sacrifice, humility, obedience, and prayer, so that we may receive personal communication from on high.

President Uchtdorf recently quoted Brigham Young who once said:

“I am … afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security. … Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates.”[6]

But, some will ask, aren’t we promised that the Lord will not allow the prophet to lead us astray? We could answer this question with another question: What kinds of things do we think the Lord reveals to the prophets? In D&C 18:18 we learn that the Holy Ghost will “manifest all things which are expedient unto the children of men.”

It is unlikely that the Lord would think it necessary and expedient to explain the shape of the earth, the properties of electrons, or the workings of the cardiovascular system to ancient prophets. Why would we think it necessary or expedient for the Lord to explain Book of Mormon geography, the physical properties of Noah’s flood, or the possibility of space travel to modern prophets?

Prophets receive revelation on guiding God’s children back home, divine instruction on how to make our lives happier, as well as divine warnings on those things that bring us misery.  We recently received such revelatory instruction and warning in the last General Conference.

Sometimes, discourses on instruction and warning may include tangential topics for illustrative purposes that may reflect the opinions of the speaker. Opinions on such tangential topics may be correct or incorrect, but they generally would not have a bearing on the validity of any true points of doctrine central to the discourse.

Prophets and apostles—as mortal men—are not exempt from making errors. They are also entitled to their own opinions on areas where we have not received solid revelatory answers, and they are as free as all members to speculate on issues of history and science. The Lord assures us, however, that if we are living lives that allow the Holy Spirit to work within us and speak to us, if we are seeking God’s guidance through our actions, thoughts, and desires, if we pray always, accept Christ’s atonement and conform to His will, then we can receive our own revelation confirming those expedient teachings pertinent to our salvation.

Like all of us, prophets can simultaneously know divine truths and accept beliefs or traditions that are faulty or incomplete. If we can jettison any fundamentalist views of how we suppose revelation works, and if we are in tune with the Spirit, we can take comfort in knowing that even given the human nature of all of God’s children, no error of opinion will jeopardize our personal journey home to the Father.

 

Read the previous article in this series, “Even the Very Elect Can Be Deceived”

Cross-posted from Meridian Magazine.

[1] Spencer W. Kimball, “The Need for a Prophet,” Improvement Era (June 1970), 93.

[2] James E. Faust, “Continuous Revelation” Ensign (November 1989), 11.

[3] Millennial Star, 54:191.

[4] Journal of Discourses, 2:314.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Quoted in Dieter F. Uchtdorf, “What is Truth?”

Even the Very Elect Can be Deceived

by

Ash (newer) PictureIn my last installment I said that I would discuss some of the ways that fundamentalist thinking can unknowingly create stumbling blocks to our testimony. Before I get to that, however, I need to point out some important considerations about those who might be vulnerable to testimony damage.

It is significant that we ask: Who are those members who could potentially fall away because of hostile “intellectual” arguments? The answer is: all of us. We are told that in the last days “the very elect” (Matt. 24:24)—even the “elect according to the covenant” (JST Matt. 1:24)—could be deceived by “false Christs” and “false prophets.”

When we think of false Christs and false prophets we may envision lunatics who claim to be Jesus or perhaps radical leaders who would try to draw us into a faith of their own making. A false Christ or false prophet, however, would refer to anyone (religious or secular) who falsely claims the power and/or knowledge that leads to ultimate happiness and answers man’s greatest questions: Where did we come from? Why are we here? Where are we going?

Basically, any belief system that attempts to lead us down a path of thinking or behavior that draws us away from returning to Heavenly Father would count as a false Christ or false prophet. It is important therefore to note that we are told that such false teachings would even deceive the “very elect” and even those who made “covenants.”

History relates the tragic stories of other “elect” who lost their way—including one third of our pre-mortal brothers and sisters, Cain, Laman and Lemuel, Judas, the Book of Mormon Witnesses (although two returned), Sidney Rigdon (who, with Joseph, saw the Savior), and others. It should become apparent that all of us need to be on guard. Having a testimony now, or having had spiritual experiences in the past, doesn’t guarantee safety.

According to a 2001 informal poll of over 400 former members of the Church,[i] nearly two-thirds of the respondents had been active church members for at least 20 years, 58% had been married in the temple, and 59% had served missions. Former-members, of whom I am aware, include Relief Society Presidents, as well as Elder’s Quorum presidents, Bishops, and even a Mission President. A large percentage of former members undoubtedly had real testimonies and were active in their wards.

In the dream given to Lehi and Nephi they saw that many who had already “commenced” on the path to the tree of life “did lose their way” because of the mists of darkness (1 Ne. 8:23).  An iron rod ran alongside the path to the tree and those who grabbed on to it were able to stay on the path even when blinded by the dark mists. Nephi saw that this iron rod represented the word of God (1 Ne. 11:25).

Those who stayed on the path, held on to the rod, and finally made it to the tree (the “love of God” [11:25]) and tasted of its fruit were not completely safe, however. Lehi saw that some of those who tasted the fruit did “cast their eyes about as if they were ashamed” (8:25). Why were they ashamed? They were scoffed at by those in the great and spacious building on the other side of the river (11:26-28). Nephi saw that his building represented “the world and the wisdom thereof” as well as the “pride of the world” (11: 35-36).

Some of the people who had traversed the long path, held on to the word of God, managed to stay on the path in spite of the mists of darkness, and finally tasted the fruit of God’s everlasting love, still lost focus of the power of goodness of God’s love (perhaps even looked to see if there was something better [“cast their eyes about”]) because of the “wisdom” of the world.

I’ve seen this happen myself. Members who have real testimonies, who are active in the Church, who not only hold leadership callings, but devote their times and talents to the Lord, who pray, pay tithing, hold family evenings, and live the commandments—I’ve seen them lose focus on their spiritual experiences because they discover something (or several things) that contradict their assumptions of non-doctrinal issues (although they may not realize that their concerns typically center on non-doctrinal issues).

Unless they recognize that their paradigms about those issues are either faulty, naïve, or incomplete, they may suddenly doubt their spiritual experiences and question (and often jettison) any witnesses they had previously received from the Holy Spirit.

The wisdom and pride of the critics in the world tells us that there is no such thing as spiritual experiences—that all such feelings are nothing more than emotions driven byconfirmation bias (this will be discussed in greater detail in later installments). Critics argue that not only are such sources unreliable but they give contradictory answers to different people throughout the world (another topic to be addressed later). Only science, reason, and intellect, they tell us, are valuable in determining truth.

While I’m a big fan of truth as acquired from science and I believe that there are many scientific evidences that support belief, it is not possible to know, or fully deny, the existence of God through scientific means alone.

The best two medicines with which we can inoculate our testimonies are: A) The recognition that “All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it” (D&C 93:30). In other words spiritual things are spiritually discerned. We can never know if God exists, that Jesus is the Christ, or that Joseph Smith beheld them both in his First Vision without tapping into the spiritual realm; and B) Many of our paradigms and assumptions about the intellectual aspects involving the scriptures, prophecy, and the nature of prophets, are often sophomoric. As Paul said: “When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things” (1 Corin. 13:11).

As we will discuss next time, it’s not childish to have different opinions on matters of non-doctrinal issues, but it is potentially dangerous to one’s testimony to not to recognize that there are differing opinions and approaches to many LDS topics, or to ascribe to those opinions the weight of doctrine.

_________________________________

Is Logical Thinking Compatible with Spiritual Thinking?

by

Ash (newer) PictureSome of you may have received something like this in an email from a friend:

Y0UR M1ND 15 R34D1NG 7H15 4U70M471C4LLY W17H0U7 3V3N 7H1NK1NG 4B0U7 17

How is our mind able to accurately decode the above sentence when many of the words are made up of more numbers than letters? Cognitive scientists tell us that our brains typically and quickly assemble clues from the environment to paint a picture of what’s around us while filling in the necessary assumptions.

“For emaxlpe, it deson’t mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod aepapr, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer are in the rghit pcale. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit pobelrm.”[i]

What does this have to do with challenges to an LDS testimony? I’ll get to that in a moment.

In order for the brain to make assumptions (generally based on past experiences) there needs to be some sort of context—such as the shapes of numbers or the first and last letters of a word. Concurrent words or scenarios also can provide context which can “prime” the brain into filling in the blanks with what is expected. In the following two-word combinations, for example, what is likely the second word? “Wash. So_p.”  Most people will fill in the blank with an “a” thereby creating the word “soap”. If instead, however, I gave you this two-word combination: “Eat. So_p.” You would likely fill in the blank with a “u” for the word “soup.”

Dr. Daniel Kahneman (a non-LDS Israeli-American psychologist and Nobel Prize winner) argues that people—depending on the situation—either think “fast” (what he metaphorically refers to as “System 1” thinking) or “slow” (“System 2” thinking).[ii]

System 1 is our intuitive system that makes quick decisions (like reading the garbled words in the sentences above), while System 2 takes over when we have tougher puzzles such as complex math problems or other challenges that require more brain power. System 2 is lazy and avoids work unless it is forced to act. System 1 is always on and helps us navigate through our daily lives. Virtually all of us rely heavily on System 1 and we need the intuitive answers it provides. Without System 1 we couldn’t make quick enough decisions to walk, drive, or carry on a conversation.

When it comes to practically all beliefs (not just religious beliefs), it appears that a large part of our thinking depends on System 1 as well. While we may have a spiritual experience that taps into System 2 to tell us that Jesus is the Christ or that the Book of Mormon is the Word of God, System 1 takes over to fill in the blanks. When we read things in the scriptures, for example, most of us “recontextualize” or envision what we read in the context of the world around us.

This System 1 approach to scripture, Church history, and words from the Brethren, is fine when we draw on those resources in our quest for spiritual strength and enlightenment, but may fail us when we are confronted with challenging questions.

Research has shown that people who put their sole reliance on System 1 typically have a relatively high need for simplicity and absolute answers. Such persons are also generally more rigid and closed-minded and less likely to tolerate ambiguity.[iii] In other words, placing too much reliance on System 1 can lead to dogmatic or inflexible black and white thinking. This can set us up for big problems when we find that some of the issues associated with the Church are more complex than we might assume.

I should first note two important points:

1) The uneasiness that comes from discovering conflicting information is not unique to Mormonism or even religion, but plays a factor in all of those things in which we believe. The angst of discovering religion-critical complexities, however, is generally greater because religion can be a very important part of their lives. The greater the personal investment, the greater the distress.

2)  The basic tenets of the Gospel are simple—they are not complex. We are told that the two greatest commandments are to love God and to love our fellow man (Matthew 22:26-40). Joseph Smith likewise said:

“The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.”[iv]

Non-doctrinal issues, however—those topics that deal with the historical and scientific aspects in which important religious events took place—are often more complex than some people have presumed.

And unfortunately, too many people—both members and non-members—seem to think that topics such as the breadth and depth of Noah’s flood, or the DNA make-up of ancient New World inhabitants, or the connection between the Joseph Smith Papyri and the Book of Abraham, are equal (or near equal) to doctrine. They are not.

When a member takes a rigid, dogmatic, and black and white approach to these non-doctrinal issues, they set themselves up for some major intellectual heartburn when they discover that their assumptions don’t hold water. Feeling foolish for putting their faith in such things (which are ancillary to real Gospel teachings), they often express feelings of betrayal and anguish to the point where they lose their faith in primary Gospel teachings as well.

From my experience the vast majority of members who leave because of “intellectual” difficulties with the church are those who take a black and white, rigid approach to the following issues: (1) How they assume scriptures and prophets should behave, compared to how they actually behave; (2) What they assume early LDS history should look like, compared to how it actually looks; or (3) What they assume science should be able to tell us about ancient Book of Mormon peoples, versus what science can actually ascertain.

System-1-conditioned people are not stupid or intellectually lazy, System 1 is the natural mode of thinking upon which we all rely for many of the decisions we make or beliefs we value. Learning how to think outside of System 1’s intuitive box may be part of the process of “putting off the natural man” (Mosiah 3:19) and can help us inoculate our testimony against any damage caused by challenging issues.

In the next several issues I hope to engage some of those things that seem to attract a fundamentalist, black and white approach of thinking in the hopes of showing that we can change our worldviews about non-doctrinal issues without sacrificing our spiritual testimonies of those things that really matter.

___________________________________________________

[i] Both of these examples can be found in “Breaking the Code: Why Yuor Barin Can Raed Tihs,” (10 February 2012) Discovery News  (accessed 14 March 2013).

[ii] Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011).

[iii] Hal W. Hendrick, “Cognitive and Organizational Complexity and Behavior: Implications for Organizational Design and Leadership,” Information and Communication Technologies, Society and Human Beings: Theory and Framework, eds. Darek M. Haftor and Anita Mirijamdotter (Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference [IGI Global], 2011), 149.

[iv] History of the Church, 3:30.

This article also appeared in Meridian Magazine.

Evidence, Education, and The Loss of Faith

by

“Religious faith not only lacks evidence, its independence from evidence is its pride and joy, shouted from the rooftops,” Richard Dawkins.[i]

For atheists like Dawkins, religion is for the weak-minded who believe in fairy tales—not only in the absence of evidence, but in spite of evidence. Likewise, most anti-LDS pundits (even sectarian LDS-critics who themselves accept God, Jesus, and the Bible) claim that Latter-day Saints believe in a fictional Book of Mormon which is not only unsupported by evidence, but makes claims that are contrary to known historical and scientific evidences.

As I launch this new column for Meridian Magazine (original article here) I’d like to explain the direction I hope to take.

Despite the fact that Christianity is the largest religion in Europe and has been practiced in Europe since the first century,[ii] studies show that atheism is showing rapid signs of growth—especially in Western Europe.[iii]

While the atheistic movement is not yet as strong in the United Sates, polls indicate that one out of five Americans failed to indicate a religious identity.[iv] There are also a growing number of vocal atheists in the media, the news, and even groups on college campuses,[v] and several books which denounce religion have held strong spots on the best seller’s lists.

Not surprisingly, with the increase in atheistic popularity in many developed countries, we’ve also seen an increase in anti-LDS activity and prevalence. Much of this anti-religion and anti-Mormon material has sprung from the growth of the Internet. This combination has caused more than one Latter-day Saint testimony to stumble.

At a recent Utah State University question and answer session with Elder Marlin K. Jensen, for instance, Elder Jensen said that “…maybe since Kirtland, we never have had a period of, I’ll call it apostasy, like we’re having right now; largely over these issues. …we are suffering a loss…”[vi] While critics exaggerated the extent of LDS membership losses,[vii] it is undeniable that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is experiencing member losses because of hostile Internet sites.

In this column I plan to address testimony damage, the cause of testimony damage, how we can prevent such damage, and how we can actually strengthen our testimonies because of modern scholarship and evidence.

Atheism and anti-Mormonism are not the only religious-related categories that have seen growth in the past few decades. LDS scholarship, based on the wider scholarship of academia (including disciplines such as history, archaeology, anthropology, Egyptology, molecular biology, and various other areas of science), have increased our understanding and appreciation for what Joseph Smith brought forth through revelation. This increased understanding brings new evidences for what Latter-day Saints believe.

Some members may think that faith is enough, that our intellects need not, or should not factor into a testimony. For some members, faith might be all that’s needed, but for other members, intellectual support for belief is not only helpful but necessary.

When Oliver Cowdery made his failed attempt at translating the plates the Lord told him: “Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me. But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right” (Doctrine and Covenants 9:7-8).

Moroni (Moroni 10:3) and other prophets (2 Nephi 32:1) have counseled us to ponder things in our hearts—which sounds like an emotional rather than intellectual approach. Most people in ancient times, however, generally didn’t understand that the brain was the source for thoughts and reasoning. They typically believed that the heart was home for both the soul as well as the origination of thoughts.

While the Egyptians experimented with brain surgery, for instance, they nevertheless believed that the heart—not the brain—was the source for thoughts. To “ponder things in our hearts” means to include our brains in our spiritual quest.

As Latter-day Saints who believe that the glory of God is intelligence (D&C 93:36), we are told to seek wisdom from the best books (D&C 88:118) and learn more than just what we hear in Sunday School. We are encouraged to learn about astronomy, geology, history, current and foreign events, and much more (D&C 88: 79).

“Each of us,” said President Boyd K. Packer, “must accommodate the mixture of reason and revelation in our lives. The gospel not only permits but requires it.”[viii]

In 2007, the church published a statement about LDS doctrine which read in part: “The church exhorts all people to approach the gospel not only intellectually but with the intellect and the spirit, a process in which reason and faith work together.”[ix]

Latter-day Saints (like most other people who believe in a spiritual realm) believe that some evidence—such as a spiritual witness—can only come through faith, but they also maintain that faith and reason are not typically in conflict and that evidence-based reason can support faith.

Studies even suggest that for Latter-day Saints, increased education strengthens testimony and that higher education contributes to the religiosity for Mormons. It is my hope that rational thinking will play an active role in magnifying our testimonies.

“Evidence” for belief, and evidence supporting defenses against anti-LDS claims, are, contrary to some atheists, a prominent part of much LDS scholarship. Some of the web resources which offer this intellectual support include:

The Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship (formerly FARMS): (www.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/). While the direction of the Maxwell Institute is currently finding a modified course, the Institute offers vast amounts of information, articles, and books, on various LDS-scholarly topics.

The Interpreter (www.MormonInterpreter.com): This new on-line and print-on-demand journal was created by several of the original members of FARMS. In a short amount of time, they’ve been able to produce an impressive amount of material.

And, of course, there is FAIR—the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (www.fairlds.org)—an international organization of LDS volunteers who have produced a massive repository of responses to LDS-critical claims. FAIR hosts an annual Conference (the 2013 event is schedule for the August 1-2), as well as podcasts, videos, DVDs, and the most comprehensive wiki that engages challenging LDS issues.

Lastly, FAIR has produced my book Shaken Faith Syndrome: Strengthening One’s Testimony In the Face of Criticism and Doubt. This book was initially published in 2008, and just this week a 2nd edition—revised and enlarged by nearly 20%– has come from the press (http://bookstore.fairlds.org/product.php?id_product=10).

The cure for shaky testimonies—as will be shown in the months to come—is often not to study less, but to study more.

 

[i]  Richard Dawkins, “Is Science a Religion,” The Humanist (January/February 1997), 26-27.

 

[iii] Nigel Barber, “The Human Beast: Why We Do What We Do,” Psychology Today (18 May 2010) available at http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201005/why-atheism-will-replace-religion.

 

[iv] Barry A. Kosmin and Ariela Keysar, “American Religious Identity Survey  [Aris 2008],” (Trinity College, March 2009), available at http://b27.cc.trincoll.edu/weblogs/AmericanReligionSurvey-ARIS/reports/ARIS_Report_2008.pdf

 

[v] Laurie Goodstein, “More Atheists Shout It From the Rooftops,” The New York Times (16 April 2009), available at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/us/27atheist.html

 

[vii] Peggy Fletcher Stack, “Mormons Confront ‘Epidemic’ On Line Misinformation,” The Washington Post (1 February 2012) available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/mormons-confront-epidemic-on-online-misinformation/2012/02/01/gIQApULJiQ_story.html

 

[viii] Boyd K. Packer, “I Say Unto You, Be One,” BYU Devotional (12 February 1991), available at http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=373

 

[ix]  “Approaching Mormon Doctrine,” (4 May 2007) available at http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

 

 

FAIR Issues 30: Joseph’s translation shows remarkable consistency

by

Podcast: Download (5.9MB)

Subscribe: RSS

The entire Book of Mormon was translated in a span of 65 to 75 days. As Joseph translated, he did not have any manuscripts or books from which to read. After spending hours dictating the translation, Joseph would take a break for a meal or other interruption, then pick up the translation where he had left off, without either seeing the manuscript or having any portion of it read to him. If Joseph was dictating fiction and never had past portions read back to him, how did he keep things straight and consistent for nearly six hundred pages without forgetting at least some of the details?

We stand in awe at how this relatively uneducated young man could produce a work that not only teaches eternal doctrinal principles but also weaves many tales of war, politics, migrations, and geography. Not only are the records of these events consistent, but they often match what we now know about ancient societies in the Near East and early Americas.

The full text of this article can be found at Deseret News online.

Brother Ash is author of the book Shaken Faith Syndrome: Strengthening One’s Testimony in the Face of Criticism and Doubt, as well as the book, of Faith and Reason: 80 Evidences Supporting the Prophet Joseph Smith. Both books are available for purchase online through the FAIR Bookstore.

Tell your friends about the Mormon FAIR-Cast. Share a link on your Facebook page and help increase the popularity of the Mormon FAIR-Cast by subscribing to this podcast in iTunes, and by rating it and writing a review.