FAIR

Apologetics

Fair Issues 35: Loose-control translation

by

Podcast: Download (7.0MB)

Subscribe: RSS

Ash (newer) PictureWhile there are interesting evidences for a “tight control” over the Book of Mormon translation, there are also evidences and logical reasons to assume a “loose control.”  In this article, Michael Ash provides several examples illustrating this method from Elder John A. Widtsoe and Orson Pratt.

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.

 

Apologetics and Falsifiability

by

Birch
Brian D. Birch, director of the Religious Studies Program at Utah Valley University.

The new edition of the Mormon Studies Review features a roundtable discussion between various  scholars on the question of the state of Mormon studies. The roundtable kicks off with a thoughtful piece by Brian D. Birch, whose argument has two components. “On the one hand, I seek to argue that Mormon studies absent theological and apologetic voices is artificially exclusionary and unproductive. One the other hand, I argue that the appeal to religious authority in deflecting critical arguments can be equally inappropriate and detrimental.”[1] It is an aspect of Birch’s first point that I shall pay attention to in this blog post. His second point will have to wait for another day. [Read more…] about Apologetics and Falsifiability

Fair Issues 34: Four evidences for tight control

by

Podcast: Download (7.4MB)

Subscribe: RSS

Ash (newer) PictureIn this article Michael Ash provides four evidences of a “tight control” Book of Mormon translation using repetition, construct state, rent garment and conditional sentence examples. As explained in last week’s article some of the evidences for a “tight control” translation comes from the fact the ungrammatical first printing makes perfect grammatical sense in Hebrew.

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 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.

Fair Issues 33:The tight control theory

by

Podcast: Download (6.8MB)

Subscribe: RSS

Ash (newer) PictureIn this article, Michael Ash explains how Joseph Smith may have used the tight control method  in the translation process of the Book of Mormon.  Proper names are spelled out for the first time to correct any misunderstanding that may have occurred when sounding out  new names.  Proper grammar is also addressed as an issue to explain how a strong case can be made that the Book of Mormon often betrays “a too literal adherence to an apparent Hebrew original.”

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.

4th Watch 11: What does it mean to be saved?

by

Podcast: Download (22.4MB)

Subscribe: RSS

4thWatch Small

The term “salvation” or “being saved” has long been discussed and debated by scholars of many faith traditions.  In this podcast Bobby Gilpin of the anti-Mormon blog Mormonism Investigated UK is interviewed by Ned Scarisbrick in relationship to the gospel doctrine of salvation.

Mr. Gilpen comes from the evangelical Calvinist tradition of Christianity and the term ‘anti’ may come across as disrespectful to those who are actually kind to members of the LDS Church.  The term anti in this discussion is used to represent those who are against or openly opposed to the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, much as the term “pro” could be used for those who agree with or openly promote the teachings of the LDS Church.

The dialogue between Mr. Scarisbrick and Mr. Gilpin teaches us that it is possible to have a religious discussion about serious gospel topics in a kind and respectful manner.  They illustrate how to earnestly contend for the faith without being contentious. As always, the views and opinions expressed in this podcast may not reflect those of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or that of Fair Mormon.

 

Joseph Smith’s Greatest Hits

by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

________________________________

* This article also appeared in Meridian Magazine.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Putting Doubt in Perspective

by

“Where doubt is, there faith has no power.” Lectures on Faith

33480_1612609000660_2667876_nAn unavoidable part of life is that we routinely experience doubt, confusion and uncertainty. These feelings are always troubling, but they can be especially disconcerting when they relate to our feelings about God. During those times, I like to think about two different episodes in the scriptures.

The first event involved Christ and a great number of his followers. In the sixth chapter of the Gospel of John, Christ gave what has become known as “The Bread of Life Sermon” in which he stated that He is the Bread of Life and that unless we eat of his flesh and drink his blood, we cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Most of those who were listening were so upset by the notion that we must eat the flesh and blood of Christ to go to Heaven that they stopped listening then and there and left the savior.

Only his most loyal disciples, the twelve, remained. Christ did not run after those who left to apologize for offending them, or to try and explain that it was merely a metaphor. He merely turned to the twelve and asked, “Will ye also go away?” (John 6:67.) It was Peter who replied. He did not say, “Of course we’re going to stay. We understand that you are only speaking metaphorically.” Instead, he said “to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.” (John 6: 68.) Peter and the twelve may have experienced the same kinds of doubts, confusion and uncertainty that were felt by those who left, but the twelve set those feelings aside and stood by the Savior. Rather than act upon whatever doubts they may have had, they acted upon their faith. And because of this decision to act with faith, and continue following the savior, their faith was eventually transformed into knowledge.

The second story involves a great miracle and a man of imperfect faith. The anguished man had sought a blessing from the disciples of Christ for his son, who had been afflicted with convulsions since he was a child. When the disciples were unable to heal the son, the scribes, perhaps seeing an opportunity to embarrass the disciples of Christ, started arguing with the disciples. At this point, Christ entered the scene and asked what the argument was about. The man stepped forward and explained how he had brought his son to the disciples to be healed, but they had failed. Christ told the man that “all things are possible to him that believeth.” (Mark 9:23.) Of course, the man had just witnessed how Christ’s disciples had fallen short and were now being challenged by critics of the Church. The conclusion the man might have drawn was that not even the disciples had sufficient faith. Under these circumstances, it would be understandable if the man gave up and surrendered to doubt. Instead, the man gathered all the faith he could, and said “Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.” (Mark 9:24.) In other words, he was not certain that Christ could heal his son. But he would set aside what uncertainty he had and ask for a miracle. In doing so, his faith turned to knowledge once Christ healed the son.

Clearly, we can be blessed and even witness miracles even though we experience confusion and doubt. Nevertheless, we may become discouraged when we find that our leaders are imperfect. We may become upset at some difficult doctrine or find some Church historical events impossible to fathom. President Uchtdorf recently acknowledged that leaders of the Church have made mistakes and that with respect to the history of the Church, “there have been some things said and done that could cause people to question.”[i] His counsel was to be patient while we gather more information, consider looking at things from a different perspective, and to “first doubt your doubts before you doubt your faith. We must never allow doubt to hold us prisoner and keep us from the divine love, peace, and gifts that come through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.”[ii]

Yet, one does not need to spend much time on the internet today to find people who speak of doubt as if it is something to be proud of. It seems that for some, a person is not truly thoughtful if that person does not regularly experience doubt about the Church and its leaders. For such people, doubt is a badge of honor and a symbol of intellectual maturity rather than a burden and trial to be overcome. As Elder Holland has observed, “Sometimes we act as if an honest declaration of doubt is a higher manifestation of moral courage than is an honest declaration of faith. It is not!”[iii]

Of course, as people speak of “doubt,” it is sometimes difficult to know what they mean. The word “doubt” may be used when all that is meant is mere confusion, uncertainty or a reservation of judgment. Other times the word “doubt” may be used to describe bitterness, cynicism and distrust. One can temporarily “doubt” certain things in the first sense, and still generally see with an “eye of faith.” (Alma 32:40.) However, “doubt” of the second kind erodes and undermines faith. And even when doubt begins as mere questioning or uncertainty, if left unresolved, it can eventually devolve into cynicism and bitterness.

Usually, when we speak of doubt in a religious context, it denotes a condition that is antithetical to faith. For example, when the scriptures or general authorities speak of doubt, it is almost always of the more negative variety.So we are understandably concerned when a friend or family member admits to having “doubts.” And it can be especially confusing lately to hear so many speak of doubt as something useful or even desirable.

Whether doubts end up as a positive or negative thing for us depends to a large degree upon how we look at them and what we do about them.[iv] Elder John A. Widstoe examined the different approaches to doubt as follows:

 The strong man is not afraid to say, “I do not know”; the weak man simpers and answers, “I doubt.” Doubt, unless transmuted into inquiry, has no value or worth in the world…. To take pride in being a doubter, without earnestly seeking to remove the doubt, is to reveal shallowness of thought and purpose.

…

Doubt of the right kind—that is, honest questioning—leads to faith. Such doubt impels men to inquiry, which always opens the door to truth. The scientist in his laboratory, the explorer in distant parts, the prayerful man upon his knees—these and all inquirers like them find truth. They learn that some things are known, others are not. They cease to doubt….

 On the other hand, the stagnant doubter, one content with himself, unwilling to make the effort, to pay the price of discovery, inevitably reaches unbelief and miry darkness. His doubts grow like poisonous mushrooms in the dim shadows of his mental and spiritual chambers. At last, blind like the mole in his burrow, he usually substitutes ridicule for reason, and indolence for labor….

…

Doubt which immediately leads to honest inquiry, and thereby removes itself, is wholesome. But that doubt which reeds and grows upon itself, and, with stubborn indolence, breeds more doubt, is evil.[v]

Elder Holland has added: “Be as candid about your questions as you need to be; life is full of them on one subject or another. But if you and your family want to be healed, don’t let those questions stand in the way of faith working its miracle.”[vi]

While it is possible, as Elder Holland suggests, to have questions, but still have faith, it is also becoming increasingly common for people to talk about doubt as being essential to faith in a way that might lead one to conclude that if one does not carefully preserve and cherish one’s doubts, one might just lose one’s faith. While it is true that experiencing and overcoming doubt can strengthen faith, God does not expect us to cling to our doubts. Ultimately, doubt is not the friend of faith, but rather its enemy. As we learn from the Lectures on Faith, “Where doubt is, there faith has no power.”[vii]

Last year, Terryl Givens gave a fireside presentation entitled “Letter to a Doubter.” This insightful piece has had a dramatic impact on the way in which many of us view doubt and doubters. Of course, as with many ideas that garner great enthusiasm, we can begin to carry an idea to an extreme that starts to undermine the very reason for communicating the original idea.

Obviously, Professor Givens did not intend to foster greater doubt. Rather, he hoped to help build faith. Yet, if we are not careful, we may mistakenly take his arguments as justification for not only defending, but encouraging doubt. Givens says that we should be grateful for our doubts. However, this is only true in the same sense that we should be grateful for our temptations, suffering and afflictions. There must be an opposition in all things. (2 Ne. 2:11.) It is in resisting temptation, enduring suffering and overcoming affliction that we progress and grow. It is through the test of our adversities that we manifest our true desires. We should no more seek out and celebrate doubt than we should seek out and celebrate temptation, suffering, or affliction. As Givens explains:

 I know I am grateful for a propensity to doubt because it gives me the capacity to freely believe.… There must be grounds for doubt as well as belief in order to render the choice more truly a choice, and therefore more deliberate and laden with more personal vulnerability and investment. An overwhelming preponderance of evidence on either side would make our choice as meaningless as would a loaded gun pointed at our heads…. What we choose to embrace, to be responsive to, is the purest reflection of who we are and what we love. That is why faith, the choice to believe, is, in the final analysis, an action that is positively laden with moral significance.[viii]

So doubt is necessary for the way in which it helps to reveal our true desires. Doubt can also help us to grow, to gain experience, and to maintain our moral agency. But it is not a condition that we should seek after or complacently maintain. Just as we can choose to believe, we can also choose to doubt. Elder Neal A. Maxwell observed that for some, this is a serious temptation:

 Why are a few members who somewhat resemble the ancient Athenians, so eager to hear some new doubt or criticism? (See Acts17:21.) Just as some weak members slip across a state line to gamble, a few go out of their way to have their doubts titillated. Instead of nourishing their faith, they are gambling “offshore” with their fragile faith. To the question “Will ye also go away?” these few would reply, “Oh, no, we merely want a weekend pass in order to go to a casino for critics or a clubhouse for cloakholders.” Such easily diverted members are not disciples but fair–weather followers.Instead, true disciples are rightly described as steadfast and immovable, pressing forward with “a perfect brightness of hope.” (2 Nephi 31:20; see also D&C 49:23.)[ix]

So, although we may experience feelings of doubt, and feel tempted to embrace doubt, we should vigorously resist that choice. Among our deepest desires should be one in which we long to move beyond doubt, through faith, and into the realm of knowledge.

Nowhere in the scriptures are we told that we should choose to doubt. In fact, we are repeatedly told that we should avoid doubt. Christ said to his disciples: “neither be ye of doubtful mind.” (Luke 12:29. See also Matt. 21:21 and Mark 11:23.) The Lord told Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery to “Look unto me in every thought; doubt not, fear not.” (D&C 6:36.) And Moroni counsels all of us to “Doubt not, but be believing.” (Morm. 9:27.) More recently, President Monson said, “Do not yield to Satan’s enticements; rather, stand firm for truth. . . . Vice never leads to virtue. Hate never promotes love. Cowardice never gives courage. Doubt never inspires faith.”[x] In other words, as between doubt and faith, we should choose faith. (See also Hel. 5:49 and Morm. 9:21 & 25.)

That is not to say that we should not be inquisitive or that it is wrong to ask questions, or wonder about things. In fact, we are admonished to ask, seek and knock. (3 Ne. 14: 7 & 27:29; Matt. 7:7; D&C 6:5.) We are to worship God not only with our heart, but also with our minds. (Mark 12:30; 2 Nephi 25:29; Moroni 10:32.) We are told “with all thy getting, get understanding.” (Prov. 4:7.) President Uchtforf has said:

 Inquiry is the birthplace of testimony. Some might feel embarrassed or unworthy because they have searching questions regarding the gospel, but they needn’t feel that way. Asking questions isn’t a sign of weakness; it’s a precursor of growth.

 . . . .

 Fear not; ask questions. Be curious, but doubt not! Always hold fast to faith and to the light you have already received. Because we see imperfectly in mortality, not everything is going to make sense right now. In fact, I should think that if everything did make sense to us, it would be evidence that it had all been made up by a mortal mind. Remember that God has said:

 “My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways. …”[xi]

We are also told that some kinds of revelation come only after we have studied things out in our minds. (See D&C 9:8) Alma taught us to use both our intellectual as well as spiritual faculties to experiment upon the word. (Alma 32:27.) John taught us to test the spirits to see if they are of God. (1 John 4:1.) Similarly, Paul taught us to “Prove all things.” (1 Thess. 5:21.) We are told to diligently teach and seek “out of the best books words of wisdom.” We are to “seek learning, even by study and also by faith.” (D&C 88:118; D&C 109:7 & 14.) So as we ask, seek and knock, we are to do so in a spirit of faith, not in a spirit of cynicism, bitterness or doubt. (James 1:5-6.)

Nevertheless, although we should try to avoid complacently accepting doubt, it is not a sin to be tempted by doubt. But thoughts and feelings of doubt do not need to be indulged. It has been said that a bird may land on your head, but you don’t need to let it build a nest there. So, like other temptations of the mind, thoughts of doubt about God and His Church may enter our heads, but there is no sin in that unless we choose to cultivate, embrace or act on those thoughts.

A helpful analogy in this regard is that of Alma’s garden in Alma 32:27-43.Alma teaches us to plant the seeds of faith in the garden of our hearts and nourish and cultivate the seeds to see if they will bear good fruit and prove themselves to be good seeds. We move from faith to knowledge as the seeds grow, enlarge our souls, enlighten our understanding and expand our minds. (Alma 32:33-34.)

However, bad seeds, seeds of doubt and apostasy, can also fall into our gardens. So, just as it is important to nourish the good seeds, we should avoid nourishing the bad seeds so they do not choke out the good seeds. If we cultivate seeds of faith, we will reap the fruits of faith: knowledge and eternal life. If we cultivate seeds of doubt, we will harvest the fruits of apostasy.

Elder Maxwell similarly applied this analogy: “Lack of intellectual humility is there among those who have deliberately cultivated their doubts in order, they think, to release themselves from their covenants. Some nurture their grievances assiduously. Were their grievances, instead, Alma’s seed of faith, they would have long ago nourished a mighty tree of testimony.”[xii]

Much of the work organizations such as FairMormon do are to provide ways for people to identify the bad seeds and to give people the tools they need to pull the weeds from the gardens of their hearts.  Of course, it is not possible for FairMormon to destroy all the seeds of doubt. If it were, as Professor Givens points out, people would not be free to choose faith as they would have no options. Furthermore, while FairMormon can help give people the tools they need to remove the weeds from their gardens, a garden will still not bear fruit if no one has made an effort to plant good seeds and diligently nourish them. As Alma indicated, once the tree of testimony begins to grow, we must continue to exercise faith by nourishing the tree so that we may one day eat the fruit of the tree, which is everlasting life. (Alma 32:36-43.) Elder Neil L. Anderson discussed how we can strengthen our testimonies in the face of trials:

How do you remain “steadfast and immovable” during a trial of faith? You immerse yourself in the very things that helped build your core of faith: you exercise faith in Christ, you pray, you ponder the scriptures, you repent, you keep the commandments, and you serve others.

When faced with a trial of faith—whatever you do, you don’t step away from the Church! Distancing yourself from the kingdom of God during a trial of faith is like leaving the safety of a secure storm cellar just as the tornado comes into view.[xiii]

 Elder Quentin L. Cook further taught us what to avoid:

Many who are in a spiritual drought and lack commitment have not necessarily been involved in major sins or transgressions, but they have made unwise choices. Some are casual in their observance of sacred covenants. Others spend most of their time giving first-class devotion to lesser causes. Some allow intense cultural or political views to weaken their allegiance to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Some have immersed themselves in Internet materials that magnify, exaggerate, and, in some cases, invent shortcomings of early Church leaders. Then they draw incorrect conclusions that can affect testimony. Any who have made these choices can repent and be spiritually renewed.[xiv]

Also, in trying to avoid doubt, it can be helpful to avoid those who sow the seeds of doubt. Excessive exposure to people who are bitter, cynical and angry is corrosive and has a tendency to erode faith. Elder Maxwell observed that

as we read in the Section 46 of the Doctrine and Covenants, “to some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God… to others it is given to believe on their words…” The dark side of that coin, of course, is that doubts can be pooled, too, and anxieties shared with the wrong people so that this wilts such few tender sprouts of certitude as exist. The point is not that we should refuse to share our concerns, but that sincere doubters really seek for answers, while it is often the insincere doubter who wants to play “Can you top this?” in a frenzy of doubt for doubt’s sake.[xv]

Of course, as we try to cast the seeds of doubt out of our lives, we should not be too quick to cast out the doubters. Some, through no fault of their own, experience doubt and ask questions more than others. Elder Maxwell described different types of doubters in the following way:

You are quite right to be lovingly concerned about doubters, who come in such various shapes and attitudinal shadings. Some doubters truly seek answers. These give the Brethren the benefit of the doubt, and, for them, doubt becomes a useful spiritual spur. There are others who doubt and hold back simply because they are so afraid of being “taken in.” There are still others who are embarrassed because of their inability to defend their faith; for these, doubt is a refuge. Yet other doubters are stubborn, because they feel God has not responded to them on their terms. There are even doubters who come to enjoy their roles and the associated attention and who set themselves up “as a golden calf for the worship” of people in the Church (D&C 124:84). A variation of the latter is seen in those who are “professing and yet [are] not of God” (D&C 46:27; see also D&C 136:19). “He commandeth that there shall be no priestcrafts; for, behold, priestcrafts are that men preach and set themselves up for a light unto the world, that they may get gain and praise of the world; but they seek not the welfare of Zion” (2 Nephi 26:29).  These latter individuals have their own agendum and have apparently long since concluded that, if they can’t be a leader, then they will be a critic.

 Absent sufficient meekness in the doubter, I am not sure that much can be done. Experience can either soften or harden doubts, depending on the person’s supply of meekness. Clearly, however, our love should include all doubters, whatever their motivation, “for ye know not but what they will… come unto me with full purpose of heart” (3 Nephi 18:32).[xvi]

As we strive to spread the gospel and build faith in others, patience and love are necessary if we are to reach those who are struggling, but have not yet surrendered to and embraced doubt. As Elder Maxwell has written:

The ability to create a climate around us in which people, as in the case of the man who approached Jesus, feel free enough to say the equivalent of “Lord, help Thou my unbelief,” is a critical skill. If we can deal with doubt effectively in its nascent stages, we can assist people by a warmth and love which frees them to share the worries that they may have, and increase the probability of dissolving their doubt. But, if we over–react to dissent or to doubt, we are apt, rather than inculcating confidence in those we serve, to exhibit what, in the eyes of the rebel, may seem to be a flaw in our inner confidence in what we say.

 We need to relax to be effective in the process of helping people who are building testimonies.Over–reacting and pressing the panic button when doubt first makes its appearance can render us ineffective. This is one of the reasons why parents are often in a temporarily poorer tactical position to deal effectively with a rebellious son or daughter—the anxiety is too real to relax. In these circumstances, bishops, teachers, and friends can be helpful—not because they are clinically detached, for their love and concern should be honestly communicated—but rather because third parties sometimes can listen a little longer without reacting, can prescribe with a clear–headed assessment, and most of all, can be a fresh voice which conveys care and concern, a voice which has risen above similar challenges.[xvii]

Doubt is necessary, in the cosmic scheme of things, if we are to experience an authentic test of our true desires, retain our moral agency, and have the kind of full experience we need that will help us to become more like Christ. However, as we better come to appreciate the necessity of doubt, we should be careful to speak of doubt in its proper place. Doubt is a condition to be overcome and not a virtue to be embraced.

* I am indebted to Gregory L. Smith for his help in finding many of the quotes I have used. This article also appeared in Meridian Magazine.

[i] Dieter F. Uchtdorf, “Come, Join With Us,” General Conference, October, 2013.

[ii] Ibid., referencing F. F. Bosworth, Christ the Healer (1924), 23.

[iii] Holland, Jeffrey R., “Lord, I Believe,” General Conference, April 2013.

[iv] For further elaboration upon this idea and an excellent discussion of how to overcome doubts, see Brent L. Top, “Have Ye Inquired of the Lord?” Meridian Magazine (2004).

[v] John A. Widtsoe Evidences and Reconciliations (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1991), 31–33.

[vi] Holland, Jeffrey R., “Lord, I Believe,” General Conference, April 2013.

[vii] Lectures on Faith, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1985, p. 46.

[viii] Givens, Terryl L., “Letter to a Doubter.” See also Terryl L. Givens, “‘Lightning Out of Heaven’: Joseph Smith and the Forging of Community“, BYU Speeches of the Year, 29 November 2005.

[ix] Neal A. Maxwell, “Answer Me,” in Conference Report (October 1988): 40.

[x] Monson, Thomas S., The World Needs Pioneers Today, Ensign, July 2013. See also Monson, Thomas S., The Call to Serve, Ensign, October 2000 (“Remember that faith and doubt cannot exist in the same mind at the same time, for one will dispel the other. Cast out doubt. Cultivate faith.”); Pearson, Kevin W., “Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ,” General Conference, April 2009 (“Doubt is not a principle of the gospel. It does not come from the Light of Christ or the influence of the Holy Ghost.”); The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1982), p. 462 (“Apostasy usually begins with question and doubt and criticism.”).

[xi] Dieter F. Uchtdorf, “The Reflection in the Water,” CES Fireside for Young Adults, November 1, 2009 (quoting Isaiah 55:8).

[xii] Neal A. Maxwell, Meek and Lowly (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1987), 6.

[xiii] Neil L. Anderson, “Trial of Your Faith,” October 2012, General Conference. Furthermore, President Kimball added the following observations:

At a distant stake conference one Sunday I was approached after the meeting by a young man whose face was familiar. He identified himself as a returned missionary whom I had met out in the world a few years ago. He said he had not attended the conference but had come at its conclusion, wanting to say hello. Our greetings were pleasant and revived some choice memories. I asked him about himself. He was in college, still single, and fairly miserable.

I asked him about his service in the Church, and the light in his eyes went out and a dull, disappointed face fashioned itself as he said, “I am not very active in the Church now. I don’t feel the same as I used to feel in the mission field.What I used to think was a testimony has become something of a disillusionment. If there is a God, I am not sure any more. I must have been mistaken in my zeal and joy.”

I looked him through and through and asked him some questions: “What do you do in your leisure? What do you read? How much do you pray? What activity do you have? What are your associations?”

The answers were what I expected.He had turned loose his hold on the iron rod. He associated largely with unbelievers. He read, in addition to his college texts, works by atheists, apostates, and Bible critics. He had ceased to pray to his Heavenly Father. His communication poles were burned, and his lines were sagging terribly.

I asked him now, “How many times since your mission have you read the New Testament?”

“Not any time,” was the answer.

“How many times have you read the Book of Mormon through?”

The answer was, “None.”

“How many chapters of scripture have you read? How many verses?”

Not one single time had he opened the sacred books. He had been reading negative and critical and faith-destroying things and wondered why he could not smile.

He never prayed any more, yet wondered why he felt so abandoned and so alone in a tough world. For a long time he had not partaken of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, and he wondered why his spirit was dead.

Not a penny of tithing had he paid, and he wondered why the windows of heaven seemed closed and locked and barred to him. He was not receiving all the things he could have had. And as he was thinking of his woes and his worn-down faith, his loneliness, and his failures, I was thinking of a burned-out pasture in northern Argentina and burned-off telephone posts and sagging wires and dragging posts.

President Kimball, “Keep the Lines of Communication Strong,” April 1972, General Conference.

[xiv] Quentin L. Cook, “Can Ye Feel So Now?” October 2012, General Conference.

[xv] Neal A. Maxwell, For the Power is In Them…(Mormon Musings) (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1970), 31.

[xvi] Maxwell, Neal A., That Ye May Believe, Kindle edition, 2026.

[xvii] Maxwell, Neal A., A More Excellent Way: Essays on Leadership for Latter–day Saints (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1967), 62.

Mormon Fair-Cast 170: The Interpreter Foundation and FairMormon

by

Podcast: Download (8.2MB)

Subscribe: RSS

 

10-1706-large

Shaken Faith Syndrome Available for a Limited Time at a Discount at Costco

Has a member of your family lost their faith? Buy “Shaken Faith Syndrome” now at Costco locations throughout Utah. Meet the author, Mike Ash, at the following Utah Costco locations:

  • The Ogden Costco on Wednesday, October 9, from 12 to 3.
  • The Sandy Costco on Wednesday, October 16, from 12 to 3.
  • The West Valley Costco on Wednesday, October 23 from 12 to 3.
  • The Murray Costco on Wednesday, October 30, from 12 to 3.

Costco will only schedule book signings when a book is selling well, and will only continue to carry a book so long as it is selling well. It also sells books at a significant discount. This would be the perfect time to buy multiple copies to share with friends and family members as Christmas presents.

In this episode of Religion Today, which originally aired on KSL Radio on October 6, 2013, Martin Tanner speaks with Dan Peterson of the Interpreter Foundation and Steve Densley, Jr. of FairMormon to discuss the activities of these respective organizations and the book, Shaken Faith Syndrome, which can also be purchased here at the FairMormon Bookstore.

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 FAIR.

Testimony Damage and the Problem of Assumptions pt. 1

by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*This article also appeared in Meridian Magazine.

________________________________

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

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

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

[iv] Ibid., 24.

[v] Ibid., 31.

[vi] Ibid., 25.

[vii] Ibid., 45.