FAIR

Faithful Study Resources for Come, Follow Me

Apologetics

Fair Issues 57: Lehi’s ancient Arabic poetry

by

Podcast: Download (6.6MB)

Subscribe: RSS

MAIn this podcast brother Ash discusses how in Lehi’s world it was customary among Arabs to rename any new territory they encountered with their own names.  It was therefore appropriate for Lehi to name a river and a valley after his two eldest sons.  This form of culture was unknown during the days of Jacksonian-era Americans like Joseph Smith.

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 FairMormon 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.

The views and opinions expressed in the podcast may not reflect those of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or that of FairMormo

 

Fair Issues 56: Nephi, Joseph Smith and biblical motifs

by

Podcast: Download (7.2MB)

Subscribe: RSS

MAIn this podcast Michael R. Ash discusses the parallels between the wilderness accounts in the Bible and those found in the Book of Mormon.  LDS researcher Ben McGuire offers a perspective from his article “Nephi and Goliath: A Case Study of Literary Allusion in the Book of Mormon.”  Blake Ostler also contributes a case study in what is called “The Throne-Theophany and Prophetic Commission in 1 Nephi: A Form-Critical Analysis.”

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 FairMormon 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.

The views and opinions expressed in the podcast may not reflect those of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or that of FairMormo

Articles of Faith 5: Kevin Christensen on Inevitable Consequences of the Different Investigative Approaches of Jeremy Runnells and Jeff Lindsay

by

Podcast: Download (56.3MB)

Subscribe: RSS

kevin-christensenKevin Christensen has been a technical writer since 1984, He has a Bachelors in English from San Jose State University.  He has published articles in Dialogue, Sunstone, the FARMS Review of Books, the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Insights, the Meridian Magazine, including his article in the Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture entitled Eye of the Beholder, Law of the Harvest: Observations on the Inevitable Consequences of the Different Investigative Approaches of Jeremy Runnells and Jeff Lindsay. Kevin comes to us today by phone to discuss that article. (The article is not yet public-visit The Interpreter website to find the text when available.)

Some questions from the interview:

Some of your prior articles for the Interpreter have been dealing with Temple Mysticism and temple theology with an emphasis on the works of Margret Barker, a Methodist who seems to be making her way into the minds of some LDS scholars. This article that you have coming out in the Interpreter has very little if anything to do with such a topic; what brought about the shift in topic?

The title of the article is perhaps a bit verbose so I guess it serves as both the abstract and the title, it is Eye of the Beholder, Law of the Harvest: Observations on the Inevitable Consequences of the Different Investigative Approaches of Jeremy Runnells and Jeff Lindsay. Without knowing the two individuals Jeremy Runnels and Jeff Lindsay the article might be of a diminished value. Why don’t you give a summary of who these two men are and why they are the subjects or case studies of your article?

In a recent devotional at BYU Idaho, Elder D. Todd Christoferson invited the audience to have patience when doing investigation of the history of the church, and its teachings. In some ways it seems as if the subtext of that statement is that if you stop half way you will inevitably find yourself in a faith crisis. The only way to a faithful conclusion is to be diligent in learning by study and by faith. You insert a theory on just such a thing with your article, what is that hypothesis?

You put on a sort of spiritual doctor or maybe even a spiritual mathematician kind of hat as you write this article. I won’t call it an autopsy or audit of Jeremy Runnells spiritual journey, but rather an analysis or a diagnosis of how one comes to negative conclusions about the LDS faith. There is even an equation that you employ to describe this process, can you explain those two, let’s call them, equations?

I want to read a paragraph from your article as an introduction to my next question: “The familiar fable of Henny Penny (also known as Chicken Little) makes a related point. In the fable, a chicken interprets the fall of an acorn as evidence that “The sky is falling!” Another interpretation of exactly the same event would be that “The sky is not falling, but just an acorn. No big deal. No crisis. Acorns fall from oak trees all the time. It’s natural and to be expected.” Another character in the more cautionary versions of the fable, Foxy Loxy, sees not a crisis, or a non-event, but an opportunity to exploit fear and ignorance for his own gain. Same data. Different interpretation. The information does not speak for itself, but must be interpreted within an informational context and a conceptual framework.” This echo’s your title, the Eye of the Beholder. How we see things greatly informs our decisions. This is perhaps not that new a concept for some, but what is happening in the subtext of that statement is putting the onus on one’s spirituality and the way they take their spiritual path is their own fault. In other words Chicken Little’s interpretation of the sky falling is not the acorns fault. Nor is it the tree’s fault. These things just happen naturally. How them does this play into viewing the Jeremy Runnels of the world? For that matter, the Jeff Lindsay’s as well?

You pose the question or the situation, “what are we to do with the issue of perfection, meaning perfection of translation, etc.” That was an opening critique of the CES Letter, and that ends up being a pivotal start in determining Runnells mindset. How so?

When it comes to some of the arguments against latter-day Saint teachings, there is often a complaint about a given topic, such as prophets, but rarely offers an alternative definition. It is not so much that these individuals think that they are right, but that others are wrong.

You continue to go down the row, not necessarily point by point, but you do give some feedback on the faults of the Runnels argument. We don’t need to go into details about each one, but perhaps you could give a listing of some of the other topics that you address in Runnells argument.

You have a phrase in this article that is mentioned with respect to concerns that are raised about scientific issues, here is the quote, “I learned long ago to pay as much attention to the networks of assumptions involved as to the observations which are then fitted into that network.” Expand on that for a minute if you could.

I want to give an encapsulated example of the many issues you address and how you address them. So, I wanted to take on an issue that I am becoming more and more confused by, and that is the issues surrounding the Book of Abraham as a Smoking Gun argument. Let’s consider for a moment that I know nothing of this issue, take me from the beginning of this segment of the article and walk me through how you approach it. You start off by giving Runnell’s claims, “Of all of the issues, the Book of Abraham is the issue that has both fascinated and disturbed me the most. It is the issue that I’ve spent the most time researching on because it offers a real insight into Joseph’s modus operandi as well as Joseph’s claim of being a translator. It is the smoking gun that has completely obliterated my testimony of Joseph Smith and his claims.” That is a heavy indictment indeed. But why is this statement in and of itself quite telling as to what has gone into his research?

There is so much that this over 30 page article goes into, but the end goal of the article is to raise the question, “Why is it that when Jeff Lindsay studied these issues does his faith expand, and Runnells faith shatter? How can two individuals study the same issues and come to complete opposite conclusions?

If you could give one or two pieces of advice for the individual who is approaching various gospel subjects and is facing the junction of heading towards the Runnells conclusion or the Lindsay conclusions? Why is your approach the best approach?

Letters to a Former Missionary Companion – Letter 2

by

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

Dear Doug,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your friend,

Shane

Coping with the “Big List” of Attacks on the LDS Faith

by

One of the challenges in defending one’s faith is coping with critics who use the “Big List” technique in their attack. This involves throwing out numerous arguments to create the impression of an overwhelming barrage that decimates the faith in question (see the related post, “If Only 10% of These Charges Are True…“). The Big List is loaded with barbed questions that weren’t written in search of a real answer. If there is a good defense to the arguments raised at first, never mind, there are many more to be launched in different directions.

As with many topics in fields like history, science, and religion, the issues raised in Big List attacks are often complex and may require exploring abundant details to answer questions properly. Even for those who are prepared to answer questions on a wide variety of topics, the time it takes to lay a foundation and properly answer a question can be taken by the instantly impatient critics as an admission of weakness and confirmation that they are right, and then it’s time to move on to the next attack and the next. If reasonable answers are promptly provided for some attacks, or if the alleged weakness on further examination actually proves to be evidence in favor of the faithful position, the response can be ignored as new attacks from the Big List are hurled out.

This doesn’t just happen in anti-Mormon attacks. Attacks on many other faiths use the same approach. Interesting, attacks on some aspects of modern science by religious fundamentalists or young earth Creationists also may rely on the Big List approach, much to the exasperation of scientists who know there are good answers to the attacks, but often may not be able to adequately deal with the barrage of questions from critics not really interested in the answers. Some scientists call the tactic the “Gish Gallop” after Duane Gish, a Creationist noted for hurling numerous brief arguments to overwhelm opponents in debates on evolution.

One interesting recent example is discussed by famous science blogger PZ Myers in the post, “No! Not the list of stumpers again!” at Pharyngula. Myers writes:

There’s a common tactic used by creationists, and I’ve encountered it over and over again. It’s a form of the Gish Gallop: present the wicked evolutionist with a long list of assertions, questions, and non sequiturs, and if they answer with “I don’t know” to any of them, declare victory. It’s easy. We say “I don’t know” a lot.

Jack Chick’s Big Daddy tract is a version of the creationist list, and contains a fair amount of fantasy as well. You know what they believe will happen: they’ll ask that one question that the scientist can’t answer, and then they’ll have an epiphany, a revelation, and realize that all their science is a lie, at which time they’ll resign from their university position and join a good bible-believin’ church.

It happens to me all the time, too. At one talk I gave, there was a woman at the door who had printed a 5-page, single-spaced list of questions, and she was telling everyone going in to ask me to answer them — I invited her to come in and listen to the talk and ask them herself, and she ran away. I’ve had a Canadian creationist do the same thing, and then I talked to him for several hours in the hallway after the talk. He seemed stunned and angry that I actually had answers for most of his questions. I have been confronted by people with questions (more like ignorant assertions) about biology, who once I’ve answered them and reveal that I’m a biologist, switch to asking me about geology and the Big Bang, to get me into a corner where I’d have to say, “I don’t know.”

This approach, often launched by some of the same religious folks who like to denounce The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is painfully familiar to me.

By the way, for the record, I believe in God and believe that He is the Creator, yet believe that science and religion will ultimately be compatible when properly understood. I have no problem with the earth being billions of years old and with evolutionary tools being part of God’s toolkit for preparing a planet like ours for the miraculous spectrum of life that we have here. While I disagree with the arguments used by many Creationists, as one who loves science, I definitely believe that the majesty of the cosmos and the many intricacies of life cannot be reasonably explained as mere accidents, but are evidences of a remarkably clever and artistic Creator. So while I do not share some of PZ Myers views, I can relate well to the frustration of being hit with Big List attacks from religious critics not really interested in understanding or dialog.

One of my first experiences in helping to teach the Gospel after graduating from school and taking my first job in Appleton, Wisconsin involved a young college student, a new LDS convert, who had been given volumes of anti-Mormon literature by her former pastor. She came in with a stack of books, relying especially upon a thick tome published by a popular anti-Mormon organization. She asked one pointed question after another, all of which turned out to have reasonable answers, in my opinion, that we were able to offer on the spot. We dealt with them one at a time, turning to answers from the scriptures, when appropriate, or making points based on logic or other sources of information.

After about 40 minutes of this, she grew impatient and said something like, “Look, maybe you’ve got answers for the questions I’ve raised, but there are hundreds more arguments in this book. How can the Church be true when there are so many arguments against it?”

I said that it’s easy to make arguments against anything. I reminded her of the days of early Christianity when there were numerous false witnesses against Christ, when there were paid witnesses who said that the tomb had been raided by Christians to fake the Resurrection, when all the elite religious leaders of the Jews spoke against Christ, and when the whole Roman world seemed to speak against Christ and the Christians. There were volumes and volumes of arguments against the Church back then, too. “If you were living them, how could you see past the massive arguments and recognize the divinity of the Son of God and the truth of Christianity?”

Unwilling to acknowledge the importance of a spiritual witness, she returned to her anti-Mormon books. I pointed out that while we had examined only a few of the arguments, the ones she had raised had reasonable answers, and some even demonstrated a lack of integrity on the part of the authors. Her answer surprised me: “I don’t care. Even if only 10% of that book is true, that’s enough to prove the Church is false.”

Ah, the fallacy of the Big List, a key tool in the Adversary’s arsenal. Impress them with shear volume, wear them out with endless attacks, and many will succumb, overwhelmed by the image and impression of strength.

A few years ago I received a letter from a former LDS member explaining why he and his wife were leaving the Church. In that letter, he acknowledged that there may be “excuses” to deal with each anti-Mormon argument when taken individually, but that taken together as a whole, the case against the Church is overwhelming. He then listed a barrage of arguments, mentioning DNA and the Book of Mormon, anachronisms, 4,000 changes in the Book of Mormon, racism, polygamy, the Temple and masonry, etc. — problems that each can be dealt with if one takes the time to understand the issues and examines the assumptions behind them. Even then, one must be willing to recognize that there always will be some gaps in our understanding and that no amount of evidence and study will remove the need for faith or replace the power of a witness from the Holy Ghost. But in many cases, there are answers, sometimes powerful answers that turn apparent weaknesses in the Book of Mormon, for example, into strong evidence for authenticity. Such insights do not come from a superficial glance at the text and related literature. Sadly, he became another victim of the fallacy of the Big List.

There are tough arguments, indeed. DNA and the Book of Mormon is an example of this. For a meaningful understanding of the issues, one must identify assumptions and evaluate information from a variety of perspectives. In so doing, one can come away with a better understanding of what the Book of Mormon is and what it is not. But the Adversary would have us just fold based upon a superficial examination: “Wow, there’s no obvious Jewish DNA in the Americas. End of story!”

To help those coping with Big List issues, I’ve begin compiling my own list of recommended reading for students of the LDS religion. I hope it will be helpful to some. I’m not saying that you have to read this list before you leave the Church (or join it), but if you’re willing to look at answers and evidences, it might be a great place to start.

The Gospel is true, and the Book of Mormon is a divine, authentic book of scripture, in spite of whatever mountains of books and brochures against it the enemy can mount. And Jesus is the Son of God, no matter how many false witnesses and PhD’s and celebrities take a stand against Him. It’s not about who can shout the loudest and longest, but Whose gentle voice we listen for amidst the senseless shouting of men.

*Cross posted from Mormanity.

Letters to a Former Missionary Companion

by

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

Dear Doug,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your friend,

Shane.

New Gospel Topics Essay: “Peace and Violence among 19th-Century Latter-day Saints”

by

A 19th century depiction of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, printed in T. B. H. Stenhouse's book The Rocky Mountain Saints (1873).
A 19th century depiction of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, printed in T. B. H. Stenhouse’s book The Rocky Mountain Saints (1873).

A new essay on the Gospel Topics website went up this morning. It is titled “Peace and Violence among 19th-Century Latter-day Saints” and covers, among other things, 19th century vigilantism and violence among Latter-day Saints.

The article begins by emphasizing that the Church strives to emulate Jesus’ call to peace.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is founded on the teachings of Jesus Christ. The virtues of peace, love, and forgiveness are at the center of Church doctrine and practice. Latter-day Saints believe the Savior’s declaration, found in the New Testament and the Book of Mormon, that “blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.” In Latter-day Saint scripture, the Lord has commanded His followers to “renounce war and proclaim peace.” Latter-day Saints strive to follow the counsel of the Book of Mormon prophet-king Benjamin, who taught that those who are converted to the gospel of Jesus Christ “will not have a mind to injure one another, but to live peaceably.”

But, given the religious persecution perpetuated against the Saints in the 1830s and 40s, and given the historical context of vigilantism in 19th century America, the article goes on to discuss lamentable moments of violence and retaliation that the Saints committed. During the 1838 Missouri War, for example, “some [Mormon] leaders and members organized a paramilitary group known as the Danites, whose objective was to defend the community against dissident and excommunicated Latter-day Saints as well as other Missourians.” While the Danites may initially have had noble intentions, as the war escalated their actions quickly turned violent and aggressive.

Danites intimidated Church dissenters and other Missourians; for instance, they warned some dissenters to leave Caldwell County. During the fall of 1838, as tensions escalated during what is now known as the Mormon Missouri War, the Danites were apparently absorbed into militias largely composed of Latter-day Saints. These militias clashed with their Missouri opponents, leading to a few fatalities on both sides. In addition, Mormon vigilantes, including many Danites, raided two towns believed to be centers of anti-Mormon activity, burning homes and stealing goods.

But violence among 19th century Mormons did not end in Missouri. As the Saints settled the Rocky Mountains, vigilantism and violence cropped up in some instances of conflict with Native Americans. As relationships between some Mormons and Native Americans strained, “A series of battles in February 1850 resulted in the deaths of dozens of Utes and one Mormon. In these instances and others, some Latter-day Saints committed excessive violence against native peoples.”

During this time was also the so-called “Mormon Reformation” of the mid-1850s.

In the mid-1850s, a “reformation” within the Church and tensions between the Latter-day Saints in Utah and the U.S. federal government contributed to a siege mentality and a renewed sense of persecution that led to several episodes of violence committed by Church members. Concerned about spiritual complacency, Brigham Young and other Church leaders delivered a series of sermons in which they called the Saints to repent and renew their spiritual commitments. Many testified that they became better people because of this reformation.

One aspect of this “reformation” was the proliferation of violent rhetoric or imagery in the sermons of some Church leaders, such as Brigham Young and Jedediah M. Grant.

Nineteenth-century Americans were accustomed to violent language, both religious and otherwise. Throughout the century, revivalists had used violent imagery to encourage the unconverted to repent and to urge backsliders to reform. At times during the reformation, President Young, his counselor Jedediah M. Grant, and other leaders preached with fiery rhetoric, warning against the evils of those who dissented from or opposed the Church. Drawing on biblical passages, particularly from the Old Testament, leaders taught that some sins were so serious that the perpetrator’s blood would have to be shed in order to receive forgiveness. Such preaching led to increased strain between the Latter-day Saints and the relatively few non-Mormons in Utah, including federally appointed officials.

Commonly termed “blood atonement,” this rhetoric, while mostly just that, also appears to have led to violence in some instances.

While many of the exaggerated claims that appeared in the popular press and anti-Mormon literature [about blood atonement] are easily disproven, it is likely that in at least one instance, a few Latter-day Saints acted on this rhetoric. Nevertheless, most Latter-day Saints seem to have recognized that the blood atonement sermons were, in the words of historian Paul Peterson, “hyperbole or incendiary talk” that were “likely designed to frighten church members into conforming with Latter-day Saint principles. To Saints with good intentions, they were calculated to cause alarm, introspection, and ultimately repentance. For those who refused to comply with Mormon standards, it was hoped such ominous threats would hasten their departure from the Territory.”

Violence committed by 19th century Mormons reached its bloody apogee in 1857 with the terrible massacre of a group of emigrants from Arkansas at the site of Mountain Meadows in southern Utah. The history of this event, besides being summarized by the new essay, has been discussed in an article published in the Ensign and in the 2008 volume Massacre at Mountain Meadows. As explained by the essay, “while intemperate preaching about outsiders by Brigham Young, George A. Smith, and other leaders contributed to a climate of hostility, President Young did not order the massacre. Rather, verbal confrontations between individuals in the wagon train and southern Utah settlers created great alarm, particularly within the context of the Utah War and other adversarial events.” So then who was ultimately responsible for this crime? “A series of tragic decisions by local Church leaders—who also held key civic and militia leadership roles in southern Utah—led to the massacre.”

The essay concludes by acknowledging violence committed by 19th century Mormons but also emphasizing a need for caution in outright condemning the early Saints as a violent people.

Many people in the 19th century unjustly characterized the Latter-day Saints as a violent people. Yet the vast majority of Latter-day Saints, in the 19th century as today, lived in peace with their neighbors and families, and sought peace in their communities. Travelers in the 19th century often noted the peace and order that prevailed in Mormon communities in Utah and elsewhere. Nevertheless, the actions of relatively few Latter-day Saints caused death and injury, frayed community relationships, and damaged the perception of Mormons as a peaceful people.

The violent actions committed by early Mormons should not be excused or justified, but should be understood in proper historical context. Thankfully, the tumultuous early years of the Church, which saw violence being committed both against and by Mormons, are behind us. Hopefully we can learn from the mistakes of the past while also tempering rash judgement with sound historical understanding.

For more on the topics discussed in the new essay, be sure to check FairMormon’s articles on the Mormon Reformation, crime and violence in early Utah, the Mountain Meadows Massacre, and blood atonement. Also, as you’re browsing the new Gospel Topics essay, be sure to click on the links on the right of the page, such as on the link to the new Doctrine and Covenants and Church History seminary manual, for further reading.

*Cross-posted from Ploni Almoni: Mr. So-and-So’s Mormon Blog.

Fair Issues 54: Does the Book of Mormon get the Old World Details Right?

by

Podcast: Download (6.8MB)

Subscribe: RSS

MAWhen we examine the Old World geography through which the Lehites would have traveled, we find remarkable consistency with the terrain and trails that accurately match what we find in the Book of Mormon.  What are the chances that Smith could have known such accuracy fro the literature available to him during his day? In the case of ancient Arabia, we are amazed that Joseph Smith got so many things right when the literature of his day got so many things wrong.

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 FairMormon 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.

The views and opinions expressed in the podcast may not reflect those of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or that of FairMormon.

Brian C. Hales Interview – Articles of Faith Show

by

Podcast: Download (41.3MB)

Subscribe: RSS

Brian C Hales – Dissenters: Portraying the Church As Wrong So They Can Be Right Without It

Brian C. Hales is a board-certified anesthesiologist in Layton, Utah. He graduated from Utah State University with a B.S. in biology and from the University of Utah, College of Medicine.

He authored Setting the Record Straight: Mormon Fundamentalism (2008) and The Priesthood of Modern Polygamy: An LDS Perspective (1992). Hales has published articles in Mormon Historical Studies, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, and the Journal of Mormon History. Brian Hales is also webmaster of www.MormonFundamentalism.com and www.JosephSmithsPolygamy.com.

Brian has also served as president of the Utah Medical Association and as president of the Medical Staff at Davis Hospital and Medical Center. He is the father of four adult children and author of the 3 volume set, Joseph Smith’s Polygamy.

 

Fair Issues 53: Does DNA prove or disprove the historicity of the Book of Mormon

by

Podcast: Download (7.2MB)

Subscribe: RSS

MAElder Dallin H. Oaks, speaking of those who participate in non-official venues wherein church-related topics are discussed, observed that sometimes “a volunteer will step forward to present what he or she considers to be the church’s position.  Sometimes these volunteers are well-informed and capable, and contribute to a balanced presentation.  Sometimes they are not, and their contribution makes matters worse.  When attacked by error, truth is better served by silence than by a bad argument.”

In this podcast brother Ash explores the contributions of DNA studies to the historicity of the Book of Mormon both for and against the Nephite scripture.

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 FairMormon 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.

The view and opinions expressed in the podcast may not reflect those of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or that of FairMormon.