FAIR

Faithful Study Resources for Come, Follow Me

SteveDensleyJr

Mormon Fair-Cast 216: The role of women in the Church.

by

Podcast: Download (8.3MB)

Subscribe: RSS

MartinTannerIn this episode of Religion Today, Martin Tanner discusses some of the issues pertaining to the role of women in the Church. This episode originally aired on KSL Radio on November 17, 2013 and appears here by permission of KSL Radio. The opinions expressed do not necessarily represent the views of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or of FairMormon.

Listeners will note that the first part of this episode is missing. We apologize for this inconvenience.

Mormon Fair-Cast 204: What is a Christian?

by

Podcast: Download (9.2MB)

Subscribe: RSS

Joseph_Smith_first_vision_stained_glassWhat does it mean to be a “Christian?” Does a Christian believe in the literal resurrection of Jesus? Does a Christian believe in prophets? Do Christians believe everything that is in the Bible? What if they believe things that are not in the Bible? Do Christians believe that one must repent in order to be saved? These questions are addressed in this episode of Religion Today, with Martin Tanner, which originally aired on KSL Radio on April 7, 2013.

This recording was used by permission of KSL Radio and does not necessarily represent the views of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or of FairMormon.

A Yankee Lawyer’s Guide to the “Mormon Apocalypse”

by

A British man named Tom Philips has filed a fraud action in England against President Thomas Monson and is claiming that it will bring on the “Mormon Apocalypse.” However, rather than inciting fear and panic among the faithful, if they know about the case at all, the most common response is one of bewilderment among Mormons and non-Mormons alike. That is due partly to the fact that it seems quite odd that someone would pursue a case for fraud that is based on faith claims and personal opinions. But, at least for Americans, the odd nature by which the claim has arisen procedurally is equally puzzling.

As an American civil defense lawyer, I think I have been as befuddled by this case as anyone. So I’ve consulted British lawyers and legal sources and come up with the following guide to what Phillips has called, the “Mormon Apocalypse.”

1. Private prosecution of a criminal matter in England

First, let’s consider how this matter was initiated. Under English law, a member of the public may, with some exceptions, act as a private prosecutor of a criminal matter. In order to do so, a person must first do what is called “laying an information” at a magistrate’s court. This is simply a written statement that clearly describes the offense with a citation to the pertinent criminal statute. Once this is done, a magistrate or clerk may issue a summons. Before doing so, the magistrate or clerk tries to verify that the statement actually alleges some criminal wrongdoing, it has not been filed too late, it has been filed in the correct location, and the person filing the statement is the proper person to be making the claim. The magistrate or clerk is not required to make any inquiries into the facts before issuing a summons. However, the court must at least be satisfied that at least some evidence exists to support the claim, which is the purpose in this case of the statements of Bloor and Ralph. Therefore, any assumption that the magistrate in this particular case must have already weighed the facts and found the evidence supporting the claim to be well-founded is incorrect. Furthermore, since a summons requires the defendant to come to court either in person or to appear through an attorney, President Monson will not be required to appear in person.

The reason why English Law allows a private party to proceed with a criminal prosecution in this manner is that until 1986 there was no professional prosecution service in England and the majority of prosecutions were commenced by police officers “laying information” and applying for either a warrant or summons.  Since the 1984 Police and Criminal Evidence Act however, English Police have been given extensive powers to arrest, charge and require bail of individuals suspected of criminal offences thus reducing their need to apply for warrants of arrest. In 1986, a national Crown Prosecution Service (“CPS”) headed by the Director of Public Prosecutions, has been given the responsibility for almost all criminal prosecutions in England. In Scotland, the legal position is different from that which exists in England. There has always been a professional prosecution service in Scotland and private prosecutions are not allowed. The same is now true of most countries in the former British Empire.  Today, private prosecutions, such as that initiated by Philips are very rare in England and are increasingly regarded by many lawyers and judges as an unnecessary and undesirable historical anomaly.

In this case, “information was laid” by Tom Phillips on behalf of Stephen Colin Bloor and Christopher Denis Ralph, and a summons was issued on behalf of each of them summoning President Monson to appear (though he may do so through an attorney) before the court on March 14. In this case, one summons names Stephen Colin Bloor (an ex-Mormon dissident), as an alleged victim and another names Christopher Denis Ralph (another ex-Mormon dissident) as another alleged victim. Each summons states as follows:

That between 3rd February 2008 and 31st December 2013 dishonestly and intending thereby to make a gain for himself or another or a loss or risk of loss to another made or caused to be made representations to [Stephen Colin Bloor/Christopher Denis Ralph], which were and which you knew were or might be untrue or misleading and thereby induce the said [Stephen Colin Bloor/Christopher Denis Ralph] to pay an annual tithe to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, namely that:

  1. The Book of Abraham is a literal translation of Egyptian papyri by Joseph Smith.
  2. The Book of Mormon was translated from ancient gold plates by Joseph Smith, is the most correct book on earth and is an ancient historical record.
  3. Native Americans are descended from an Israelite family which left Jerusalem in 600 B.C.
  4. Joseph and Hyrum Smith were killed as martyrs in 1844 because they would not deny their testimony of the Book of Mormon.
  5. The Illinois newspaper called the Nauvoo Expositor had to be destroyed because it printed lies about Joseph Smith.
  6. There was no death on this planet prior to 6,000 years ago.
  7. All humans alive today are descended from just two people who lived approximately 6,000 years ago.

Contrary to section 1 of the Fraud Act 2006.

You are therefore summoned to appear before Westminster Magistrates’ Court 181 Marylebone Road, London, NW15BR on 14/03 2014 at 10AM in Courtroom 6 to answer the said information.

Failure to attend may result in a warrant being issued for your arrest.

Of course, the significance of February 3, 2008, is that this is when Thomas S. Monson became President of the Church.

It should also be noted that despite the reference to the possibility of an arrest warrant being issued if President Monson does not attend court, there is no legal requirement for him to physically attend.  Under § 122 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980, found here, a defendant who is represented by a lawyer is deemed to be present at Court and § 23 of the same Act allows all preliminary matters prior to trial itself to be dealt with by lawyers representing a defendant if “the Court is satisfied that there is good reason for proceeding in the absence of the accused.” Good reason would of course include the distance between London and Salt Lake City.

The purpose of the hearing on March 14 is merely administrative in nature, and nothing substantial is likely to occur. For example, President Monson (or his attorney on his behalf) will be asked to enter a plea of guilty or not guilty, and it will be determined whether the case should be heard in the higher level “Crown Court.” Since these allegations involve criminal fraud, and a high-profile defendant, the case would presumably be transferred to Crown Court. That is where all preliminary legal arguments will take place, and, if the case is not dismissed beforehand on a pre-trial motion, a trial by jury would occur there.

However, this is an unusual situation. So it is possible that at the first hearing the court will agree to consider a motion to dismiss.  It is also possible that the CPS will take over the case and discontinue it, which is something the CPS is entitled to do with any private prosecution. Of course, the case is not likely to be taken over unless CPS has already decided to discontinue it.

Also, it is possible for the defense to ask for more time before entering a plea and thus the case may simply be adjourned, perhaps with a direction to Phillips that he should serve his evidence on the defense.  There are a broad variety of possibilities at this preliminary stage. But basically, either the case will be concluded by a dismissal, or it will more likely be adjourned to proceed on another date, likely at the Crown Court.

Although some seem to imagine that a media circus will ensue in which President Monson is hauled into court in front of flashing cameras and shouting reporters, even an entire trial can proceed without a defendant being physically present if he is instead present through video link. Providing evidence through video link is increasingly common in English Courts.

However, lawyers for the Church will almost certainly seek to have the charges dismissed as a nullity at an early stage.  First, English law does not allow courts to adjudicate on issues of religious belief, (see e.g., Khaira v Shergill, [2012] EWCA Civ 983). The Church could also argue for a dismissal on the basis that the case is vexatious, malicious and an abuse of process. And if the case were to proceed to trial, there are other issues that undermine the viability of this case that are noted in more detail below.

It should also be noted that if Phillips does not prevail against the Church, he may[i] be required to pay the legal fees incurred by the Church in defending against this claim.

2. The Fraud Act of 2006

The statutory basis for the claim against President Monson lies in the Fraud Act of 2006, found here. Specifically, Subsection 2 of the Act explains that “Fraud by false representation” occurs when:

1. A person dishonestly makes an untrue or misleading statement (in a way that is either express or implied),

2. That the person knows is, or might be, untrue or misleading,

3. Intending that by making the statement, he will make a gain for himself or another, or cause a loss to another or expose another to a risk of loss.

Section 12 of the Act further provides that where an offence against the Act was committed by a “body corporate,” but was carried out with the “consent or connivance” of any director, manager, secretary or officer of the body corporate, then that person, as well as the body itself, is liable.

The penalty under the statute is imprisonment of not more than 12 months and/or a fine of an undetermined amount, but which could be ordered up to the amount of tithing paid by Bloor and Ralph in reliance on the alleged statements.

From this, it seems that the primary questions raised are:

  • Did President Monson or the Church as a “body corporate” make the representations that are listed in the warrant?
  • Did he or the Church do so “dishonestly?”
  • Are the representations untrue or misleading?
  • Did President Monson know they are false or misleading?
  • Did he do any or all of these things with the intent of making gain for himself or the Church or with the intent to cause Bloor or Ralph to incur a loss?
  • Did Bloor and Ralph pay their tithing because of these statements?

What this all boils down to is this: Assuming the case is not dismissed at a preliminary stage, the question will be, can Phillips as prosecutor of this action prove beyond a reasonable doubt that President Monson knows the Church is false and has nevertheless used his position as President of the Church to publish false statements that are intended to cause Bloor and Ralph to pay tithing, and did Bloor and Ralph pay tithing because of those statements?

3. Analysis of the claims

It is unclear whether Phillips is claiming that President Monson made fraudulent statements to Bloor and Ralph in person, or if these are statements that President Monson allegedly made, or caused to be made on the internet among the publications of the Church.[ii] It is possible that the court might hold that Phillips must prove that these statements were made directly to Bloor and Ralph, and that it is not enough that any statements were published to the world in general on the Church’s website. However, the law on this point may be unsettled. Assuming that publications on the internet are sufficient, we can then examine the various questions in light of statements published by President Monson or the Church within the past few years that appear on the Church’s website.

The first question is, did President Monson make, or cause to be made, any of these statements since becoming president of the Church? Clearly, many of these statements appear on the Church’s website. However, it is somewhat unclear with others. For example, I am not aware of any unambiguous statement from the Church or from President Monson since he became President that there was no death on the planet before 6,000 years ago. Furthermore, it is somewhat unclear whether Phillips will need to prove that the alleged statements originated after President Monson assumed leadership of the Church, or whether statements that were made previously, and only perpetually republished on the internet or in written publications can form a viable cause of action.

Did he or the Church make these statements “dishonestly?” The English Court of Appeal in Regina v Ghosh [1982] QB 1053 established a two-part legal test that applies to all charges involving “dishonesty.” The first question is “whether according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people what was done was dishonest. If it was not dishonest by those standards, that is the end of the matter and the prosecution fails.”  If (but only if) the defendant’s conduct was dishonest by those standards, the jury must consider the second question, which is “whether the defendant himself must have realised that what he was doing was [by the standards of reasonable and honest people] dishonest.” From all of the public information available about President Monson, it is hard to imagine what evidence Phillips could present that would convince a jury both that reasonable and honest people would think that he had been dishonest and that he realized that what he has taught as President of the Church would be considered to be dishonest.

Are all of these statements demonstrably false or misleading? No. Rather, nearly all of them are matters of faith and not demonstrably false. Many of the statements are simply matters of opinion. (E.g., the Book of Mormon is the most correct on Earth.) Those which are statements of faith or opinion cannot be disproven. It should be also be noted that, contrary to what some critics of the Church have claimed, President Monson will not be required to prove that each of the alleged statements is true. Rather, Phillips will be required to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that these statements are false, that President Monson knew they were false, and that he made them with the intent to defraud Bloor and Ralph and that they paid tithing in reliance on these statements.

Did President Monson know these statements are false? There is no evidence that President Monson thinks that what he and the Church have been teaching is false. While some critics have claimed that he does not really believe the Church is true, and has not testified of the foundational doctrines of the Church for many years, he has, in fact, done so as evidenced here.

Did he do any or all of these things with the intent of making gain for himself or the Church or with the intent to cause Bloor or Ralph to incur a loss? I am aware of no evidence to support this element of the claim and it seems impossible to prove that President Monson had any such intent.

Did Bloor and Ralph pay their tithing because of these statements? While it seems plausible that a reason that Bloor and Ralph paid their tithing, at least in part, because of faith in the general idea that the Book of Mormon is the word of God, it would seem strange if they felt induced to pay tithing on the basis of each of the particular statements that are alleged to have been made, such as the statement: “There was no death on this planet prior to 6,000 years ago.”

In summary, this case may be dismissed within the next few months on the simple basis that English law does not allow courts to adjudicate on issues of religious belief. If it proceeds beyond that stage, even if it can be proven that President Monson and the Church made all of the alleged statements, those that have been made are not demonstrably false but are matters of faith, or opinion, and there is every indication that President Monson believes the Church is true, so cannot be held to have knowingly misled anyone regarding the truth claims of the Church.


[i] In the original version of this post, I said the Phillips “will” be required to pay fees if he does not prevail. However, I have since learned that this particular issue may be more complicated than originally thought due to the fact that this is a private prosecution of a criminal matter.

[ii] With respect to the substance of the statements, FairMormon has written a large number of articles that address the various topics that are raised in these allegations. Regarding the translation of the Book of Abraham, see here and here. Regarding whether Abraham himself wrote on the papyrus owned by Joseph Smith, see here. For evidences that the text of the Book of Abraham is of ancient origin, see here. For a general list of articles regarding the Book of Abraham, see here.

For a general list of articles regarding the Book of Mormon, including articles related to the translation process, the historicity of the Book of Mormon, DNA evidence regarding Native Americans, as well as the comment that the Book of Mormon “is the most correct book on earth,” see here.

On whether or not Joseph and Hyrum Smith may properly be considered martyrs, see here and here. On the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor, see here.

On the question of whether there was death on the planet prior to the Fall of Adam, see here. For a list of articles discussing evolution and related issues, see here.

Mike Ash and Shaken Faith Syndrome at Eborn Books on February 7

by

10-1706-large

Mike Ash will be appearing at Eborn Books in Salt Lake City on February 7 at noon to sign copies of his book, Shaken Faith Syndrome.

Eborn Books is located at 254 S. Main Street in Salt Lake City, right across from the Gallivan Plaza Station light rail stop.

Shaken Faith Syndrome has been a valuable tool for those navigating the challenges of faith and doubt, and also for those who are experiencing a family member undergoing a crisis of faith. Now is a great time to pick up the new edition of his book, which has helped many people understand the emotional experience of a faith crisis, as well as how one can strengthen their faith in the midst of such a trial. Geared toward saints who aspire to be both critical thinkers and believers, Ash helps readers reevaluate false assumptions and misplaced expectations that may make them vulnerable to a faith crisis, and helps replace them with healthier approaches. He specifically addresses issues of doctrine versus popular tradition, unrealistic expectations of both leaders and scholars, and leaders’ personal opinion versus doctrine. He also counters the more common claims made against pro-church scholars, such as those who participated in FARMS, now the Maxwell Institute. Ash further provides an overview of common anti-LDS claims and the scholarship that has been put forth to answer them. Shaken Faith Syndrome is both an interesting book in and of itself, and also a handy reference for those first encountering anti-Mormon claims. If you haven’t yet read it or if you know someone to whom you would like to give it as a gift, pick yours up at Eborn books on Friday. If you do not live in the area, we also carry it in the FairMormon Bookstore.

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Exclusive Book Excerpt: Letters to a Young Mormon, Chapter 3

by

Excerpt from Adam S. Miller, Letters to a Young Mormon (Provo, UT: Neal A. Maxwell for Religious Scholarship, 2014), 17-23.

Used by Permission of the Neal A. Maxwell Institute. For FairMormon blog only. Not to be redistributed or copied.

3. Sin

Dear S.,

Being a good person doesn’t mean you’re not a sinner. Sin goes deeper. Being good will save you a lot of trouble, but it won’t solve the problem of sin. Only God can do this. Fill your basket with good apples rather than bad ones, but, in the end, sin has as much to do with the basket as with the apples. Sin depends not just on your actions but on the story you use those actions to tell.

Like everyone, you have a story you want your life to tell. You have your own way of doing things and your own way of thinking about things. But “my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts” (Isaiah 55:8–9). As the heavens are higher than the earth, God’s work in your life is bigger than the story you’d like that life to tell. His life is bigger than your plans, goals, or fears. To save your life, you’ll have to lay down your stories and, minute by minute, day by day, give your life back to him. Preferring your stories to his life is sin.

Sin is endemic to the story you’re always telling yourself about yourself. This story shows up in that spool of judgmental chitchat—sometimes fair, sometimes foul—that, like an off-stage voice-over, endlessly loops in your head. This narration follows you around like a shadow. It mimes you, measures you, sometimes mocks you, and pretends, in its flat, black simplicity, to be the truth about you. This story is seductive. It seems so weightless and bulletproof and ideal. But as a shadow it hides as much as it reveals. You are not your shadow. No matter how carefully you line up the light, your body will never fit that profile. Sin is what happens when we choose our shadows over the lives that cast them. Life is full of stories, but life is not a story. God doesn’t love your story, he loves you.

Your story, like everyone’s, is a bit of a Frankenstein. Without your hardly noticing or choosing, it gets sewn together, on the fly, out of whatever borrowed scraps are at hand. You may have borrowed a bit from your mother, a bit from a movie you liked, and a bit from a lesson at church. You may have stitched these pieces together with a comment overheard at lunch, a glossy image from a magazine, and a second-grade test score. Whatever sticks. More stuff is always getting added as other stuff is discarded. Your story’s projection of what you should be is always getting adjusted. Your idea of your shadow’s optimal shape gets tailored and tailored again.

Like most people, you’ll lavish attention on this story until, almost unwittingly, it becomes your blueprint for how things ought to be. As you persist in measuring life against it, this Franken-bible of the self will become a substitute for God, an idol. This is sin. And this idolatrous story is all the more ironic when, as a true believer, you religiously assign God a starring role in your story as the one who, with some cajoling and obedience, can make things go the way you’ve plotted. But faith isn’t about getting God to play a more and more central part in your story. Faith is about sacrificing your story on his altar.

Everyone knows that little blush of pleasure that comes when you feel like your life and your story match. And I’m sure you know the pinch of disappointment that follows when you feel like your life hasn’t measured up. These blushes and pinches tend to rule our daily lives. They push and pull and bully us from one plot point to the next. “Now I should be this,” we say, “now I should have this, now I should do this. . . .” Meanwhile, the pedestrian substance of life gets shuffled offstage in favor of epic shadows.

Think about what it’s like when you buy a new shirt. You slip, hopeful, into the dressing room. Backed by doubled mirrors, you model it and ask, “Does this fit my story, does this match my shadow?” As a teenager, I never had much luck with this. In junior high, I grew fast, we didn’t have much money, and my clothes never seemed to fit. My sleeves were short and my pants were flooded. I was always yanking at my cuffs, trying to make them longer. Late one fall, my mother took me to buy a new coat. I picked a kind of knockoff ski jacket, bright blue and trimmed with red and green. We even bought it a size too big. When we got home, I put it on and went out for a long, cold walk along our empty country road. For a long time I walked back and forth, back and forth, on a half-mile stretch, imagining with great pleasure what a stranger might say if they saw me, what they might imagine about who I was or were I was going in that new jacket. I was buttoned up safe. The coat seemed like exactly the kind of prop I needed to tell myself a more convincing story. And a more convincing story seemed like exactly what I needed to better protect me. That coat was just one of the many, many stories in which I’ve tried to hide.

But even if you can get a story to work for a while, you’ll still be afraid. And when it fails to meet the measure of life, as all stories do, you’ll feel ashamed and your shame and guilt will manifest once again in that familiar pinch of disappointment.

Shame and guilt are life’s way of protesting against the constriction of the too-tight story you’re busy telling about it. The twist is that shame and guilt, manifest in this pinch, end up siding with your story and blaming life. Guilt doubles down on the self-important story you’re telling about yourself. Guilt is sin seen from the perspective of your sinfulness. Even if you feel guilty about how you’ve hurt others, that guilt remains problematic because your guilt is about you and about how you didn’t measure up to your story. Guilt recognizes your story’s poor fit and then still demands that life measure up. It recognizes that your shoes are too small and too tight and then blames your feet for their size. Repentance is not about shaving down your toes, it’s about taking off your shoes.

Jesus is not asking you to tell a better story or live your story more successfully, he’s asking you to lose that story. “Those who find their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it” (Matthew 10:39). Hell is when your story succeeds, not when it fails. Your suffocating story is the problem, not the solution. Surrender it and find your life. Your story is heavy and hard to bear. “Come to me,” Jesus says, “all you that are weary and are carrying heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light” (Matthew 11:28–30). Put down the millstone of your story and take up the yoke of life instead. You will find Jesus’ rest only in the work of caring for life. Let his life manifest itself in yours rather than trying to impose your story on the life he gives.

Obedience is important but this isn’t just about obedience. For sinners like us, the problem is not just that sin follows when we break the law. The problem is that sin severs God’s law from life and then, rather than discarding it, cleverly repurposes it. In sin, the law, rather than rooting us in life, gets pressed into playing a leading role in the story you’re trying to tell. Maybe in your story the law plays the role of an accuser: “You can’t measure up, you’re worthless!” Or, maybe in your story the law plays the role of an admirer: “You’re so great, you keep the law, you do measure up!” But either way, reduced to the role of an extra in your story, the law kills you because it abets your preference for tidy stories over living bodies.

Keeping the law doesn’t earn you heavenly merits and breaking the law doesn’t earn you hellish demerits. Both merits and demerits are about you. The purpose of the law is to point you away from yourself, free you from the self-obsessed burden of your own story, and center you on Christ. You don’t need to generate merit in order to be saved, you need instead to come unto Christ and “rely wholly upon the merits of him who is mighty to save” (2 Nephi 31:19). The law points wholly to Christ and his grace. Keeping the law is the work of relying on Christ’s merit, not the work of generating your own. This is still hard work, but it is work of an entirely different kind.

When you sin, you sin not because you’ve failed to measure up to your story but because you’ve privileged your story in the first place. Privileging your story, you don’t treat others or yourself with the care life requires. By freeing you from your story, Christ frees you from your guilt. He saves you by revealing that even your own life was never about you. Bought-back and story-poor, Christ frees space in your head to pay attention to someone other than yourself. You don’t need rigid rules and expectations, you need Spirit. You need to be sensitive and responsive. Rather than filtering other people’s voices through the shame-making screen of your story, you must learn to be responsible for the work of caring for what you share with them.

Jesus doesn’t want you to feel guilty, he wants you to be responsible. Your stories aren’t the truth, life is. And only the truth can set you free.

Love,

A.

Mormon Fair-Cast 187: Polygamy Roundtable

by

Podcast: Download (39.1MB)

Subscribe: RSS

hales

The Church recently released a new Gospel Topics article addressing plural marriage and families in early Utah. As a supplement to this material, FairMormon is reposting this Special Roundtable Discussion on Polygamy that was hosted by the Interpreter Foundation and posted August 15, 2013. The discussion is moderated by Andrew C. Smith and involves three experts on the history and practice of plural marriage within Church History.  Craig L. Foster, Brian C. Hales, and Gregory L. Smith have all published and presented widely on this topic.  The topics include:

  • A historical overview of how and why Joseph and others began its implementation
  • The historical context for marriage in the 19th century (issues of age and timing, as well as economic and historic influences)
  • The development of the institution theologically
  • A discussion of polyandry and sexuality in general within plural marriage relationships and potential offspring
  • A discussion of Mormon historians treatment of such; and
  • The accusations and rhetoric used against Joseph Smith and other leaders for their practice of polygamy.

The discussion ends with some practical suggestions for us in the Church today: why should we know the details of the early Church history of polygamy more than a century after the fact and how can we talk about this polygamous history better in the Church.

Additional resources and links on polygamy and plural marriage can be found below:

Mormon Fair-Cast 185: Race and the Priesthood

by

Podcast: Download (31.1MB)

Subscribe: RSS

RussellStevensonIn this episode of the Mormon History Guy podcast, Kate Kelly Harline interviews Russell Stevenson (author of Black Mormon: The Story of Elijah Ables and author of the forthcoming, For the Cause of Righteousness: A Documentary History of Blacks and Mormonism,  1830-2013). They discuss the meaning and ramifications of the LDS Church’s new statement on “Race and the Priesthood.”  Russell traces the origins, course, and trajectory of the Saints’ relationship with the black community and racial exclusion.

This podcast is posted here by permission of Russell Stevenson. The opinions expressed do not necessarily represent the views of FairMormon or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The Exaggerated Death of Apologetics

by

In 1897, Mark Twain’s cousin became seriously ill. Some people confused the two men, leading Mark Twain to remark a few weeks later, “The report of my death was an exaggeration.” Similarly, it may be that as long as people have been calling themselves “anti-Mormons,” critics of the Church have been predicting the demise of the Church and have been pronouncing efforts to defend it as futile. All such declarations of impending doom have proven, at the very least, to be exaggerated.

One such example is in the occasional rumblings from some quarters that “the Brethren” or the institutional Church is at odds with lay members who engage in a reasoned defense of the faith, or “apologetics.” Over the past year, the Neal A. Maxwell Institute (formerly known as FARMS) has adopted a more secular approach to the academic discipline of Mormon Studies, and has moved away from an overt defense of the Church. Some have wondered if this indicates that the “institutional Church” is distancing itself from a reasoned defense of the faith. Indeed, there are some who argue that “the brethren” want nothing to do with apologetics and surmise that President Uchtdorf’s talk in this year’s October General Conference must have come as a severe blow to Mormon apologists.

While it is true that what was once known as the FARMS Review has morphed into an annual journal with a secular focus, rather than a faith-building focus, the Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture has taken its place and is accessible, technologically advanced, and prolific. It seems that the changes at the Maxwell Institute have simultaneously created a new base for the emerging secular discipline of “Mormon Studies” while at the same time serving as the impetus for revitalized interest in publishing works in a peer-reviewed, academic journal that provide a reasoned defense of the faith.

With regard to whether or not “the Brethren” are distancing themselves from efforts to directly defend the Church against charges of its critics, Elder D. Todd Christofferson spoke in September at BYU-Idaho and not only bore his testimony of Joseph Smith, but also offered many reason-based responses to attacks against the Church. In doing so, he cited publications by FairMormon twice.

When President Uchtdorf spoke in General Conference the next month, all of the defenders of the faith that I know were thrilled to hear his words and saw them as consistent and supportive of efforts we have been making for years. Nevertheless, some people have wondered aloud whether apologists have been left disheartened and confused by President Uchtdorf’s remarks. It is hard to imagine why defenders of the faith would be at all disturbed by President Uchtdorf’s words. These people seem to assume that defenders of the Church must have been surprised to hear President Uchtdorf say that ex-Mormons aren’t simply lazy or sinful. They further seem to assume that those who defend the Church all believe that the only reason people leave the Church is because they are lazy or sinful. However, I don’t know of anyone at FairMormon who has ever said that. Unfortunately, some rank-and-file members do say such things, and, rather than support that view, I argued against it on the FairMormon Blog some time ago.

The other problem is that some people are misinterpreting what President Uchtdorf actually said. He did not say that ex-Mormons are never lazy or sinful. (Every conceivable group, including Mormons, ex-Mormons and non-Mormons includes people who are lazy or sinful.) He simply said that being lazy or sinful are not the only reasons people leave the Church. Here is the exact quote: “Sometimes we assume it is because they have been offended or lazy or sinful. Actually, it is not that simple. In fact, there is not just one reason that applies to the variety of situations.” Far from an indictment of those who defend the Church, the fact that a member of the First Presidency has publicly declared that people sometimes leave the Church for reasons other than mere laziness or sin signals a greater need for a rational defense of the faith. To the extent that some of those other reasons involve Church history or doctrine, defenders of the faith are well-equipped to address those concerns.

Finally, in addition to the efforts the Church has made through the Joseph Smith Papers Project to illuminate its history, the most clear example that the institutional Church has not abandoned or disavowed a reasoned defense of the faith is the simple fact that the Church has been providing reasoned responses to critical arguments for the past year on its main webpage, LDS.org.

While the Sunday School curriculum has focused this year on Church history, the Church has been posting articles that directly address issues that have sometimes been confusing to members and a target for critics. Two examples are this article about Oliver Cowdery’s apparent use of a divining rod, and this article putting the apostasy of Thomas B. Marsh into context.

More recently, the Church has published articles addressing the question of whether Mormons are Christians, exploring the differences in the various accounts of the First Vision, and setting forth the history of blacks and the priesthood, in which it is explicitly stated “Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else.”

Rather than being shocked and dismayed by recent actions of the institutional Church, now more than ever, faithful believers and scholars have concluded that it is an even more exciting and important time to stand up in defense of the Church and the gospel of Jesus Christ.

VOTE TODAY FOR THE MORMON FAIR-CAST!

by

Podcast: Download (1.3MB)

Subscribe: RSS

VoteNow468x60

Daily voting for the winner of the People’s Choice Podcast Awards starts November 1. On that day, fans can begin voting every day for their favorite podcast in each category at www.podcastawards.com. Voting will be open every day for 15 days, and FANS CAN VOTE ONCE EACH DAY in every category. Winners will be announced at the Podcast Awards Ceremony, which will be held at the New Media Expo in Las Vegas on Jan 5th, 2014.

To vote, go to the podcastawards.com and find the Mormon Fair-Cast entry. It is listed under the Religion Inspiration category, which is near the bottom of the page on the right. It is the third category up from the bottom. Click on the Mormon Fair-Cast entry. Then scroll down and enter your name and email address. Click on the button that describes you best (Listener, Podcaster, or Both.) For most of you that will be “Listener.” Then click on the submit button on the right.

The Mormon Fair-Cast won the award for best religious podcast in 2011, but lost in 2012 to the Ardent Atheist podcast. This year, let’s be more ardent than the atheists! Please spread the word by telling your friends. Even if we don’t win the voting, we hope this will raise awareness of the great resources we have. If we do win, it is even better. You can post a link with instructions on Facebook, Twitter, or Google Plus. Remind your friends to vote each day, and thank you for your continued support of FairMormon!