Shaken Faith Syndrome (the new 2nd edition) is now available from Amazon in Kindle format and as a Nook Book at Barnes and Noble. Either version can be purchased for $9.99.
Find the Kindle version here.
The Nook version can be purchased here.
Apologetics
Mormon FAIR-Cast 143: Responding to Anti-Mormons
Podcast: Download (9.2MB)
Subscribe: RSS
What can you do if you have friends or family members who are leaving the Church because of anti-Mormon attacks? In this episode of Religion Today, which originally aired on KSL Radio on February 3, 2013, Martin Tanner responds to this question and discusses many of the anti-Mormon attacks.
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.
The Problem of Fundamentalism
When we talk about the problems of a “fundamentalist” approach to history, scriptures, and prophets, it’s important to define our terms in the context of this discussion. “Fundamentals” are certainly good things. They are the foundations of thought, theories, and structures. In the Gospel, the fundamental beliefs are the core doctrines—the belief in God and the atoning sacrifice of the Savior. Our fundamental beliefs include the knowledge that Heavenly Father communicates with us and His prophets, and that His power on earth—the priesthood—has the authority to bind us to each other and to the divine. Fundamentals are a necessary part of religion as well as science.
Fundamentalism vs. Fundamentalist
Etymology (the study of word origins, meanings, and changes) tells us that many words change meaning over time or when the word is modified. As some have noted with amusement, we “park” on a driveway but “drive” on a parkway. The words “fundamentalist” or “fundamentalism” take on completely different meanings just by adding three letters.
In current LDS language “fundamentalist” often refers to those off-shoot groups who practice plural marriage. Outside of Mormonism, the term may refer to zealous and dogmatic members of various religions or even foreign terrorists. It may also refer to dedicated believers who take a strict black and white approach to many of their beliefs.
Christian fundamentalists (which include many Latter-day Saints) generally believe (perhaps tacitly or unconsciously) that the Bible or other scriptures are inerrant (or near inerrant), that truth comes solely from spiritual sources (perhaps defined as prophets and/or scriptures), and that science and scholarship should conform to their beliefs and never the other way around.
Most of our Protestant brothers and sisters, for example, believe (at least from an institutional standpoint) in sola scripture. This doctrine teaches that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and that all other authorities which help govern Christian life, are subordinate to the Bible. If the Bible is the absolute authority on Christ’s teachings, then it should contain no errors.
Our Catholic brothers and sisters, on the other hand, include not only Sacred Scripture into their theology, but also Sacred Tradition (the transmission of truths from generation to generation as well as apostolic succession), and Sacred Magisterium (or the infallible teachings of the Pope). Some have described this approach like the legs of a tripod; all three components maintain balance and insure the purity of Christ’s original doctrines.
While the above briefly describes Protestant and Catholic teachings that are more complex than can be covered in this short column, it is interesting to note that although Latter-day Saints don’t officially accept inerrant or infallible prophets and scriptures, some members seem to respond to challenging issues as if we did. To avoid any ambiguity, I want to make this clear—LDS doctrine does not teach that scriptures or prophets are inerrant or infallible.
Mistaken Assumption of Infallibility
The mistaken assumption of infallibility is likely the by-product of unexamined traditions and a misunderstanding of authoritative comments. I spend more time on this topic in my book Shaken Faith Syndrome, but I wish to highlight a few quotes from leaders who have addressed this topic.
“I make no claim of infallibility,” said President Spencer W. Kimball.[1] “We make no claim of infallibility or perfection in the prophets, seers, and revelators,” said Elder James E. Faust. Elder George Q. Cannon taught, “the First Presidency cannot claim, individually or collectively, infallibility.”[2] “We respect and venerate” the prophet, said Elder Charles W. Penrose, but “we do not believe that his personal views or utterances are revelations from God.”[3]
Some members have trouble accepting the fact that prophets have human weaknesses and can make mistakes. Prophets are not fax machines for the Word of God. Like all humans they must interpret and convey impressions through imperfect and incomplete human language and understanding. As Brigham Young once explained, there “isn’t a single revelation” given “that is perfect in its fulness.” God speaks “to us in a manner to meet our capacities.”[4]
Not every word spoken by a prophet should be considered scripture. In 2007 the Church posted the following on the LDS.org website:
“Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency …and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles… counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture…, official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.”[5]
Do Prophets Make Mistakes?
We must realize that prophets are just one of the many tools God utilizes in His plan to lead us back home. Prophets have the keys to the priesthood and can receive revelation and instruction for the entire Church. God’s ultimate plan, however, is thatwe, individually, come to Him through personal sacrifice, humility, obedience, and prayer, so that we may receive personal communication from on high.
President Uchtdorf recently quoted Brigham Young who once said:
“I am … afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security. … Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates.”[6]
But, some will ask, aren’t we promised that the Lord will not allow the prophet to lead us astray? We could answer this question with another question: What kinds of things do we think the Lord reveals to the prophets? In D&C 18:18 we learn that the Holy Ghost will “manifest all things which are expedient unto the children of men.”
It is unlikely that the Lord would think it necessary and expedient to explain the shape of the earth, the properties of electrons, or the workings of the cardiovascular system to ancient prophets. Why would we think it necessary or expedient for the Lord to explain Book of Mormon geography, the physical properties of Noah’s flood, or the possibility of space travel to modern prophets?
Prophets receive revelation on guiding God’s children back home, divine instruction on how to make our lives happier, as well as divine warnings on those things that bring us misery. We recently received such revelatory instruction and warning in the last General Conference.
Sometimes, discourses on instruction and warning may include tangential topics for illustrative purposes that may reflect the opinions of the speaker. Opinions on such tangential topics may be correct or incorrect, but they generally would not have a bearing on the validity of any true points of doctrine central to the discourse.
Prophets and apostles—as mortal men—are not exempt from making errors. They are also entitled to their own opinions on areas where we have not received solid revelatory answers, and they are as free as all members to speculate on issues of history and science. The Lord assures us, however, that if we are living lives that allow the Holy Spirit to work within us and speak to us, if we are seeking God’s guidance through our actions, thoughts, and desires, if we pray always, accept Christ’s atonement and conform to His will, then we can receive our own revelation confirming those expedient teachings pertinent to our salvation.
Like all of us, prophets can simultaneously know divine truths and accept beliefs or traditions that are faulty or incomplete. If we can jettison any fundamentalist views of how we suppose revelation works, and if we are in tune with the Spirit, we can take comfort in knowing that even given the human nature of all of God’s children, no error of opinion will jeopardize our personal journey home to the Father.
Read the previous article in this series, “Even the Very Elect Can Be Deceived”
Does Grant Palmer Really Claim to Have Rescued a Mormon General Authority Away from the LDS Faith?
There’s a remarkable story circulating the Net in which a prominent LDS General Authority allegedly lost his faith due to the teachings of Grant Palmer, the controversial ex-Mormon author who was teaching seminary for years while secretly circulating some highly implausible theories of plagiarism of the Book of Mormon. This General Authority has come to Palmer with the statement, “We are here to learn” and continues to learn the ways of anti-Mormon truth in his regular meetings with Palmer as his guide. This General Authority allegedly has said that all of the Apostles and many other leaders know that the Church is not true but just don’t have the courage to do the right thing (like, oh, keeping their Church job for years while sharing anti-Mormon materials with others).
You can read the story in several places such as The Free Republic or on theanonymous blog that first leaked it. Here are some excerpts:
In mid-October 2012, a returned LDS Mission President contacted me to arrange a meeting. Several days later, he called again and said that a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy also wished to attend. He said the General Authority would attend on condition that I not name him or repeat any stories that would identify him. He explained that neither of them, including the GA’s wife, believed the founding claims of the restoration were true. He clarified that they had read my book, An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins, and had concluded that the LDS Church was not true; was not what it claimed to be….
We have at this writing met three times. We first met on Tuesday, October 23, 2012 and again February 14, 2013 at my house. On March 26, 2013 we convened at the GAs house. Upon entering my home for the first meeting the GA said, “We are here to learn.” I recognized him. He has been a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy for a number of years. He has served in several high profile assignments during this period. The following are the more important statements made by the GA during our first three meetings. We now meet monthly….
He said that it takes about two to three years before the new apostle discovers that the church is not true. He said it took Dieter F. Uchtdorf a little longer because he was an outsider. He said they privately talk among themselves and know the foundational claims of the restoration are not true, but continue on boldly “because the people need it,” meaning the people need the church. When the Mission President voiced skepticism and named ___ as one who surely did believe, The GA said: “No, he doesn’t.” …
When I asked the GA how he knew these things, he answered by saying that the Quorum of the Twelve today is more isolated from the Quorums of the Seventies now because there are several of them. When only one Quorum of the Seventy existed, there was more intimacy. During his one on one assignments with an apostle, conversations were more familiar. He said that none of the apostles ever said to him directly that they did not believe; but that it was his opinion based on “my interactions with them.” Also, that none of the Twelve want to discuss “truth issues,” meaning issues regarding the foundational claims of the church.
The GA stated that my disciplinary action (which would have occurred on the final Sunday of October 2010 had I not resigned), was mandated/ordered/approved by the First Presidency of the Church. I said that if the apostles know the church is not true and yet order a disciplinary hearing for my writing a book that is almost certainly true regarding the foundational claims of the church, then they are corrupt even evil. He replied, “That’s right!”
The GA said the church is like a weakened dam. At first you don’t see cracks on the face; nevertheless, things are happening behind the scenes. Eventually, small cracks appear, and then the dam will “explode.” When it does, he said, the members are going to be “shocked” and will need scholars/historians like me to educate them regarding the Mormon past.
The Mission President and the GA both said they attend church every Sunday and feel like “a hypocrite and trapped.” The GA said his ward treats him like a king and when he gives firesides and speaks to LDS congregations they have high expectations of him. He would like to do more in getting the truth out besides raising a few questions when speaking and gifting my book to others when feeling comfortable. Perhaps this is why he has reached out to me. The GA is a man of integrity and very loving. Upon leaving each time, he always gives me a big hug.
Well, he had me until the part about the hug.OK, a few other parts raise some doubts as well. But first. let me affirm that it’s possible for General Authorities and any other Latter-day Saint to have doubts. Perhaps not as extreme as the doubts revealed when Peter, the Chief Apostle, denied Christ three times, but as long as we’re in mortality, we’ll only have part of the picture and limited knowledge with many rough spots that can become source of irritating questions and doubts. Some leaders have abandoned their membership in the past. We can accept that and should be prepared to occasionally encounter more of it in the future.
But I marvel at the audacity of the claim that all the Apostles soon learn that the Church is bogus. Except poor Dieter, it took him longer because he was an outsider. An analytical German with his brains, free from the cultural blinders and influences of insider Mormon culture, ought to be one of the first to spot problems if it were all a fraud. If Grant Palmer really wrote this, and people are saying that he has confirmed it’s from him, then this allegation reminds me of just how much a stretch it was, in my opinion, when Palmer, in promoting his book, styled himself as a prominent “insider” of Mormonism.
Who could think that Bruce R. McConkie’s moving final testimony could be delivered, virtually on his deathbed, with such power and conviction by someone who thought it was all bunk and was just going through the motions to hold onto his wealth and fame? When I was 16 years old, I had a brief encounter with Apostle Ezra Taft Benson when I was a youth speaker at our Stake Conference where he was speaking and presiding. I cannot forget the spirit and faith in his heart and eyes when he looked into my soul as he shook my hand and spoke a few words to me. I have no doubt that he truly and passionately believed in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. As one gets closer to the leaders of the Church, and to those who know them well, it’s hard to miss the depth and power of their personal testimonies. There are obviously plenty of things they don’t know and surely must be areas of uncertainty and doubt, but who can seriously claim that they are willing to discuss “truth issues” (anyone heard Elders Holland or Oaks speak in the past few years?) or suggest that those who rub shoulders with them can see that they all know it’s not true?
The story in question claims that the General Authority, who now looks to Palmer and his book for truth and hope for the rest of the Church, is a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy and was before the other quorums were added. This raises some questions that others have pointed out. Wikipedia’s list of LDS General Authorities helps us check who is serving in the Quorums of the Seventy and when they were set apart as General Authorities.
For starters, here is a helpful comment offered on one of my posts where a critic cited Palmer’s story:
Grant Palmer is blowing smoke. He talks about a current member of the First Quorum of Seventy (FQS) who was familiar with how things worked when there was only one quorum of seventy. Number of current members of the FQS who were members when there was only one quorum: 0
Based on Palmer’s memorandum, certainly this mysterious GA would have been a GA before the area seventy quorums were called in April 1995, right? FQS members called before April 1995:
Carlos Amado (based in Central America)
Claudio Costa (based in Brazil)
John Dickson (based in West Africa)So which of these three GAs, based in far flung corners of the world, is meeting with Palmer on a monthly basis? And that’s before we even get to how on earth this GA would be able to discern it takes 2-3 years for a new apostle to discover the church is not true, but it took DFU a bit longer. It would be hilarious if he wasn’t serious.
Let’s explore these claims. A good historical resource here is Wikipedia’s article on the LDS concept of the Seventy:
Second Quorum of the Seventy formed
In 1984, some seventies were appointed to the First Quorum of the Seventy who were not to serve for life, but for terms of several years. In 1989, these limited-term members were separated into a new Second Quorum of the Seventy. At the same time, the general practice was instituted of retiring all members of the First Quorum at the October general conference following their 70th birthdays, or earlier in the case of serious health problems. Some flexibility on the terms of service has emerged in recent years.
Since 1989, members of the First and Second Quorums have continued as general authorities of the church. Sometimes members are called from the Second Quorum into the First Quorum.
Since the 1976 merger of First Quorum of the Seventy, seventies are the most usual candidates to become members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Since 1976, three have been called as apostles who did not serve as general authority seventies prior to their call, including Russell M. Nelson, Dallin H. Oaks, and David A. Bednar,[12]Nelson and Oaks were ordained apostles in 1984 under church president Spencer W. Kimball, and Bednar in 2004 under church president Gordon B. Hinckley.
Area seventies and additional quorums of seventy
At the April 1995 general conference of the church, church president Gordon B. Hinckley announced the creation of a new leadership position known as the area authority.[13] The area authorities were to replace the regional representatives who had served as bridge of leadership between the general authorities and the local stakeand mission presidents. In 1997, it was decided that area authorities would be ordained to the office of seventy. As a result, these area authorities were renamed area authority seventies, and the church announced that these new seventies would become members of the newly-created Third, Fourth, and Fifth Quorums of the Seventy.[14] Later, the title “area authority seventy” was shortened to area seventy, which is the title currently in use.
Area seventies serve in the various geographic regions of the world called areas in which the church is governed by area presidencies. An international area presidency is typically composed of members of the First and Second Quorums of the Seventy, while areas in the United States and Canada are directed by a member of the Presidency of the Seventy.[15]In 2004, the Fifth Quorum of the Seventy was divided to create the Sixth Quorum of the Seventy.[16]
So who is this mysterious General Authority who looks to a better Mormon future thanks to Palmer and his book (or rather, millions of copies of that soon-to-be best seller)? He had to be a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy back in the good ol’ days when life wasn’t so complicated with all those other quorums. 1989 is the key date, for that is when the Second Quorum was formed. So we just have to look at the list of current First Quorum members and eliminate all those who were ordained after roughly 1989, inclusive. Let’s see, that leaves, well, not exactly anybody. Nobody. So that’s looking like a problem. OK, I’m still going to give bonus points for very nice specific dates given for the meetings with the General Authority. That adds a nice granular feel of reality to the story. But the part about the good ol’ days of the First Quorum apparently adds a little too much granularity that can be checked to rule out–sigh–every candidate. That’s a step backward for the credibility of this story that so many are anxious to believe. But don’t give up yet.
Perhaps the wording was off in the story as published or in the words used by the General Authority. Let’s take that statement, “When only one Quorum of the Seventy existed, there was more intimacy” and generously reconstruct it this way: “When only a couple of Quorums of the Seventy existed, before life got so hectic with all those other quorums, there was more intimacy.” Then the critical date is April 1995, and yes, there are actual candidates in the First Quorum who were sustained before then and could conceivably be meeting monthly with guru Grant Palmer.Here are the candidates:
- John B Dickson, sustained 06 Jun 1992
- Carlos H Amado, sustained 01 Apr 1989
- Claudio R. M. Costa, sustained 02 Apr 1994
One commenter elsewhere suggested that Jay E. Jensen could be a candidate, probably because he had been in the First Quourum of the Seventy and was serving in the Presidency of the Seventy when he was given emeritus status in October 2012. But as Wikipedia’s article on Jay E. Jensen explains, he was was “called to the Second Quorum of the Seventy in 1992 and transferred to the First Quorum of the Seventy in 1995.” That was after the other quorums were added so he would not have been reminiscing about his early intimate days in the First Quorum.
An apparent problem with these candidates is that they have been living and serving far away from Palmer’s territory of Utah. Carlos Amado is from Guatemala and has served and lived in various parts of Latin America. He was assigned as a counselor in the church’s Central America Area in 2011. Not likely to have been meeting with Grant Palmer in Salt Lake, nor to have invited Grant to his home (where, in Guatemala?). Claudio Costa was in the Idaho area for a while, but since 2011 has been assigned to Brazil. Not likely to have been having regular meetings recently with Palmer as his spiritual advisor in 2012.
So that leaves is with John B. Dickinson. I hope it’s not him. If it is, there are some curious details to consider. John is in the First Quorum now, but when he became a General Authority in 1992, he was called to the Second Quorum (same for the other two candidates considered here). It wasn’t until 1995 that he transferred to the First Quorum, and that’s when the other quorums were added, so it really doesn’t fit the story. Plus he’s been assigned to the Africa West Area since 2011. Seems hard to square his facts with the Palmer story.
The story from Palmer seems to imply an old-timer First Quorum member (not Second Quorum member who recently transferred to the First Quorum) who has a home in the Salt Lake City area and spends enough time there to meet several times with Palmer in 2012. Even if we generously reconstruct the story to cushion it with a few extra years after the time when the Second Quorum was added, I really don’t see that anybody in the current First Quorum could fit the very few details provided by Palmer. Even if we had scores of candidates to choose from, there are problems that could cause us to doubt its accuracy, but if we can’t even find a single candidate even with generous interpretations being applied, it would seem to raise legitimate grounds for putting this story on hold as potentially unreliable, pending further clarification. Grant, care to clarify? Give us a few clues? Am I missing something big and simple? Perhaps the next revision will make it more clear.
It is possible that some General Authority out there really is having testimony trouble and thinks Palmer and his book with its salamander-flavored Golden Pot tale offer unique insights into Mormonism that every Mormon should be taught one day. On the other hand, it’s also possible that the account, with no plausible candidate so far, is a tad delusional. A mean-spirited Mormon apologist might see a self-serving aspect to the story, with Palmer playing too grand a role and his questionable book being too powerful and important, all a potential red flag. I’d be more inclined to accept it if the story were promoting some other random book written by another insider to Mormonism such as, say, Conquering Innovation Fatigue. Hey, why not? That could shake a General Authority’s testimony as well as anything. Why, just the depressing chapter alone on Mormon inventor Philo Farnsworth could do the trick. No need to wait until the dam of truth bursts, either. But that’s another story.
Accurate or not, this story apparently from Palmer will increase publicity for his book and its claims. Here are some resources for you to better understand what Palmer has been up to:
- “Asked and Answered: A Response to Grant H. Palmer” by James B. Allen, FARMS Review, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 235-85. This is an excellent review of Palmer and also a good overview of many basic anti-Mormon criticisms of the Book of Mormon and the Restoration. Also points out some glaring deficiencies in Palmer’s approach.
- “Prying into Palmer” by Louis Midgley, FARMS Review, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 365-410. Important revelations about Palmer’s early work, and his fascination with the salamander-related documents from Mark Hoffman that were later exposed as forgeries. An interesting study in cognitive dissonance, perhaps, with an amphibian twist.
- “A Summary of Five Reviews of Grant Palmer’s “An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins” (with a Few Comments of My Own)” by George E. Cobabe. Valuable information about Palmer’s (or his publisher’s) claims to being a special insider and good background material to understand what Palmer is doing with his approach.
Dig into those background stories and then do some thinking about this new story and the red flags it raises. Do you really think it’s plausible? I know a lot of people really want to believe it and love to share this kind of salacious stuff, but we may be dealing with something that is not quite as “truthy” as you may wish. We may soon have a clarification regarding some of the trouble spots that could somehow enhance its plausibility (maybe we’ll be told that it’s not actually a member of the current First Quorum after all, but an Emeritus General Authority, for example, which could add some potential candidates), or perhaps another little dam may burst as other aspects of this story buckle under the stress of investigation. But I suspect the story will live on in its current form, regardless of its problems, with many devout nonbelievers scoring it as important evidence for their preconceived notions about the Church. For those looking for truth, though, I hope they might recognize this story as part of a large body of accusations that are often not quite accurate, not quite fair, or sometimes not even close to true.If, after suitable revisions to this story, it becomes more plausible and it turns out that there really is an apostate General Authority meeting with Palmer, saying unkind things about the Apostles and the Church, and passing out copies of Palmer’s book to mission presidents and others, then I’ll be disappointed. As I said before, there are more interesting books to be giving out.
This entry was cross-posted from Mormonanity.
Apologetic Notes from General Conference – April 2013
Now, I know that there are much more useful ways to read/listen to conference then with apologetic issues in mind. And I certainly wouldn’t advise that anyone seek out an apologetic message from conference at the expense of other, far more important messages that the General Authorities and the Spirit are trying to communicate. I’ll also grant that things which one, such as myself, might read/hear an apologetic message in are probably, more often than not, not indented apologetically. But, I do think that conference often has some things in it that are useful in our efforts to defend the faith, and so with that in mind I give you these apologetic notes. Some of things are not strictly apologetic, but have some bearing on the matter.
Saturday Morning
President Boyd K. Packer seemed to clearly have the issue of sex-same marriage in mind when he said the following:
Tolerance is a virtue, but like all virtues, when exaggerated, it transforms itself into a vice. We need to be careful of the “tolerance trap” so that we are not swallowed up in it. The permissiveness afforded by the weakening of the laws of the land to tolerate legalized acts of immorality does not reduce the serious spiritual consequence that is the result of the violation of God’s law of chastity.
While these words certainly could – and probably should – be applied to heterosexual cohabitation, given the current political climate it seems clear that President Packer had same-sex marriage in mind. He has pointed his remarks in that direction before, and caught the ire of many in so doing, but I think his remarks here are sound. We certainly should try and be tolerant and understanding of those who have same-sex attraction, even when they chose a lifestyle that goes against the gospel of Jesus Christ. But we must be sure not be so bending in the name of “tolerance” as to yield any and all gospel standards. There are still commandments – a point frequently made this last conference – and they still apply, regardless of what the laws say.
Some fuss is being made about Sister Elaine S. Dalton’s talk and her “deliberate emphasis”, as some are calling it, to say that young women are daughters of Heavenly Father, rather than “Heavenly Parents,” or even just “Heavenly Mother,” despite the fact that others have used such language in General Conference. I, for one, think people are reading way more into that “word choice” than exists – she was using the Young Women’s theme (or motto or whatever it is called) as the basis of her remarks, and that theme uses “Heavenly Father.” I honestly doubt there is anything more to it than that.
More significant to matters of women in the Church, I thought, were her remarks based on the old adage: “What-e’er thou art, act well thy part.” After relating her personal experience in coming upon that phrase, she had this to add:
As daughters of God we are each unique and different in our circumstances and experiences. And yet our part matters – because wematter. Our daily contributions of nurturing, teaching, and caring for others may seem mundane, diminished, difficult, and demeaning at times, and yet as we remember that first line in the Young Women theme – “We are daughters of our Heavenly Father, who loves us” – it will make all the difference in our relationships and our responses.
In light of the recent commotion with women in the Church – particularly with a small group calling for women to get ordained to the priesthood – Sister Dalton’s message to young women of the Church seemed loud and clear: Stop worrying about what you don’t have, but know your part and perform it well. Though it may seem unglamorous, your role in God’s plan is important, and when you remember that he loves you as a daughter, it can lighten the burden when fulfilling that role seems difficult or undesirable. This is really a message that can be applied to anyone in the Church, regardless of age or gender, but that it was pointed to the young women seems directly related to criticisms and press the Church is getting over the role of women.
Elder M. Russell Ballard followed up later in that same session with more comments that seemed directly pointed at those who are currently seeking that women receive the ordination of the priesthood:
In our Heavenly Father’s great priesthood-endowed plan, men have the unique responsibility to administer the priesthood, but they are not the priesthood. Men and women have different but equally valued roles. Just as a woman cannot conceive a child without a man, so a man cannot fully exercise the power of the priesthood to establish an eternal family without a woman. In other words, in the eternal perspective, both the procreative power and the priesthood power are shared by husband and wife. And as husband and wife, a man and a woman should strive to follow our Heavenly Father. The Christian virtues of love, humility, and patience should be their focus as they seek the blessings of the priesthood in their lives and for their family.
It is crucial for us to understand that Heavenly Father has provided a way for all of His sons and His daughters to have access to the blessings of and be strengthened by the power of the priesthood.
Elder Ballard then goes on to mention the story of Mary Fielding Smith, a women who accessed the blessings of the priesthood for her family:
She was the widow of Hyrum, the Prophet Joseph’s older brother. As a single parent, through her strong faith in the priesthood, she called upon and relied on that power to raise and bless her children in love and the light of the gospel. Today her posterity of thousands of faithful leaders and members of the Church thank her for her faith, courage, and example.
Again, it seems clear to me that Elder Ballard is speaking to the issue of women in the priesthood, stressing that – despite common rhetoric used in the Church – men arenot the priesthood, and that ultimately the full powers and blessings of the priesthood can only be shared by husband and wife, and not individually possessed. According to Elder Ballard, the men only uniquely hold the authority, everything else is shared.
Saturday Afternoon
Elder Quentin L. Cook offered these thoughts that touch on atheism and the problem of evil:
For those who reject God, there is no peace. We all participated in the councils of heaven that provided for moral agency, knowing that there would be mortal pain and even unspeakable tragedy because of the abuse of agency. We understood that this could leave us angry, bewildered, defenseless, and vulnerable. But we also knew that the Savior’s Atonement would overcome and compensate for all of the unfairness of mortal life and bring us peace.
He later makes these remarks about the popular trend today toward the kind of feel-good spirituality over religiosity:
The Church is a refuge where followers of Christ attain peace. Some young people in the world say they are spiritual but not religious. Feeling spiritual is a good first step. However, it is in the Church that we are fellowshipped, taught, and nourished by the good word of God. More importantly, it is priesthood authority in the Church that provides for sacred ordinances and covenants that bind families together and qualify each of us to return to God the Father and Jesus Christ in the celestial kingdom. These ordinances bring peace because they are covenants with the Lord.
While such matters are not necessarily apologetic, these are things that the apologist may face from time to time, and thus having the thoughts of one of the Lord’s apostles on the matter can’t hurt.
Elder David A. Bedner’s talk returns us to the topic of Chastity and same-sex marriage. Elder Bednar lays out the doctrine that undergirds the Church’s position on same-sex relationships:
After the earth was created, Adam was placed in the Garden of Eden. Importantly, however, God said “it was not good that the man should be alone” (Moses 3:18; see also Genesis 2:18), and Eve became Adam’s wife and helpmeet. The unique combination of spiritual, physical, mental, and emotional capacities of both males and females was needed to enact the plan of happiness. “Neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord” (1 Corinthians 11:11). The man and the woman are intended to learn from, strengthen, bless, and complete each other.
The means by which mortal life is created is divinely appointed. “The first commandment … God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife” (Ensign or Liahona, Nov. 2010, 129). The commandment to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force today. Thus, marriage between a man and a woman is the authorized channel through which premortal spirits enter mortality. Complete sexual abstinence before marriage and total fidelity within marriage protect the sanctity of this sacred channel.
The power of procreation is spiritually significant. Misuse of this power subverts the purposes of the Father’s plan and of our mortal existence. Our Heavenly Father and His Beloved Son are creators and have entrusted each of us with a portion of Their creative power. Specific guidelines for the proper use of the ability to create life are vital elements in the Father’s plan. How we feel about and use that supernal power will determine in large measure our happiness in mortality and our destiny in eternity.
As a part of “the standard of sexual morality,” Elder Bednar stresses first and foremost that “intimate relations are proper only between a man and a woman in the marriage relationship prescribed in God’s plan.” Understanding these theological underpinnings are essential to understanding the issue of same-sex relationships and the Church. Unfortunately, it is these teachings that are so often absent in the way that dynamic is understood. Apologist, I think, can play a major role in shaping the conversation on these issues by stressing the theological side as they engage others on this topic.
Elder Bednar closes by making a similar point as that of President Packer: “The doctrine I have described will seem to be archaic and outdated to many people in a world that increasingly mocks the sanctity of procreation and minimizes the worth of human life. But the Lord’s truth is not altered by fads, popularity, or public opinion polls.”
While some are wont to push to the Church in one direction or another based on such fads, the Church will stay the course God provides, and if and when a course change is needed – in regard to women and the Church, or same-sex relations, or any other topic – it will come as revelation through the proper channels. That does not mean we cannot have an open dialogue about these issues, and how to help those who struggle with the Church’s position on them, or what the possibilities and implications might be for the future. But it does mean that we, as members of the Church, should leave it the Lord’s chosen servants to ultimately decide what to do about these issues and how to handle them.
In closing out this session, Elder Russell M. Nelson gave this admonition to those responsible for preparing the rising generation of missionaries: “Be ready to give an answer to those who ask why you live as you do. Be ready to give a reason for the hope and joy that they see in you.” Elder Nelson’s words echo 1 Peter 3:15, “be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you,” in which “answer” is the Greek term ἀπολογίαν (apologian), meaning “apology” or “defense,” and is quite obviously the root source of words apologetics andapologist.
Priesthood Session
Elder Robert D. Hales counseled the brethren in the priesthood session “to stand strong with a shield of faith against the fiery darts of the adversary.” He then states that Latter-day Saints are “role models to the world, protecting God-given inalienable rights and freedoms. We stand in defense of our homes and our families.” He speaks of a childhood experience where his dad drew “a warrior capable of defending castles and kingdoms,” and then said his father proceeded to teach him “how to be a faithful priesthood holder – to protect and defend the kingdom of God.”
To me, these kinds of statements make apologetics – the defense of the kingdom – a priesthood responsibility.
1 Peter 3:15 comes into play again in President Thomas S. Monson’s priesthood council:
Obey the counsel of the Apostle Peter, who urged, “Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you.” Lift up your voices and testify to the true nature of the Godhead. Declare your witness concerning the Book of Mormon. Convey the glorious and beautiful truths contained in the plan of salvation.
President Monson urges members to speak up and declare their witness of the Book of Mormon. A witness in this sense is a “public affirmation by word or example of usually religious faith or conviction,” but a related meaning is “something serving as evidence or proof.” Hence to declare your witness of the Book of Mormon is not just to make a public affirmation, though it certainly is that, but to give your evidence for belief in the Book of Mormon.
Sunday Morning
For a third time, the words of 1 Peter 3:15 were invoked, this time by Elder Neil L. Anderson, “We also pray for our own opportunities to share the gospel. The Apostle Peter said, ‘Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh … a reason [for] the hope that is in you’.”
Later in this session, Elder L. Tom Perry noted, after speaking of his experience in World War II, that:
Today we find ourselves in another war. This is not a war of armaments. It is a war of thoughts, words, and deeds… Secularism is becoming the norm, and many of its beliefs and practices are in direct conflict with those that were instituted by the Lord Himself for the benefit of His children.
As with any war, this war requires that we have a defense against the opposing side, which Elder Perry identifies with secularism. We must, therefore, have a defense ofthoughts, words, and deeds against secularism. Part of apologetics seeks to make such a defense in thoughts and words, while living the gospel daily would seem to be our deeds of defense.
Sunday Afternoon
The most apologetically relevant talk came in the closing session, when Elder Jeffrey R. Holland gave a stirring address to those who are struggling with doubt. While apologetics is the defense of the faith, the purpose of that defense is help those whose faith is wavering, who are doubting as a result of the various attacks upon their faith. Elder Holland stresses, “In moments of fear or doubt or troubling times, hold the ground you have already won, even if that ground is limited.” He goes on:
When problems come and questions arise, do not start your quest for faith by saying how much you do not have, leading as it were with your “unbelief.” That is like trying to stuff a turkey through the beak! Let me be clear on this point: I am not asking you to pretend to faith you do not have. I am asking you to be true to the faith you do have. 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! So let us all remember the clear message of this scriptural account: 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.
He encourages patience when confronting controversial issues:
Brothers and sisters, this is a divine work in process, with the manifestations and blessings of it abounding in every direction, so please don’t hyperventilate if from time to time issues arise that need to be examined, understood, and resolved. They do and they will. In this Church, what we know will always trump what we do not know. And remember, in this world, everyone is to walk by faith.
And also asks that we understand that God’s servants have always been imperfect:
So be kind regarding human frailty—your own as well as that of those who serve with you in a Church led by volunteer, mortal men and women. Except in the case of His only perfect Begotten Son, imperfect people are all God has ever had to work with. That must be terribly frustrating to Him, but He deals with it. So should we. And when you see imperfection, remember that the limitation is not in the divinity of the work. As one gifted writer has suggested, when the infinite fulness is poured forth, it is not the oil’s fault if there is some loss because finite vessels can’t quite contain it all. Those finite vessels include you and me, so be patient and kind and forgiving.
Elder Holland encourages those who are struggling to ask for help, and promises that if they do so sincerely, they will get it from both sides of the veil. He then relates the story of a 14 year old boy who said he could only believe, not know. Elder Holland than has this to say: “I told this boy that belief was always the first step toward conviction and that the definitive articles of our collective faith forcefully reiterate the phrase “We believe.” And I told him how very proud I was of him for the honesty of his quest.” The message: It is okay if you can only say “I believe,” rather than “I know.” As taught by Alma of old, let that belief and desire work in you, and overtime your faith will grow and at some point you will be able to say that you know some things.
Elder Holland offers his own life as an example of this process, and invites those with doubts to lean on the strength of his testimony for now:
What was once a tiny seed of belief for me has grown into the tree of life, so if your faith is a little tested in this or any season, I invite you to lean on mine. I know this work is God’s very truth, and I know that only at our peril would we allow doubt or devils to sway us from its path. Hope on. Journey on. Honestly acknowledge your questions and your concerns, but first and forever fan the flame of your faith, because all things are possible to them that believe.
Closing Remarks
It seems appropriate to end with those words from Elder Holland. There may be other apologetically relevant counsel from this last General Conference, but this is a nice sample. Given that we were admonished three times to be ready always with an answer to give to those who question us about our faith, identifying apologetically useful words from the prophets, apostles, and other leaders can help us be prepared to give an answer.
This article was cross-posted from Reason and Revelation.
Help Thou Mine Unbelief
In the Sunday afternoon session of General Conference, Elder Holland (hereafter “EH”) gave an address with the title “Lord, I Believe.” He sets the stage by recounting the story of the father of an afflicted child, desperate for whatever help might be afforded. The disciples were not able to provide the needed blessing. The father then appealed to Jesus with last-resort desperation:
“If thou canst do any thing, have compassion on us, and help us.
Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.
And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.”
EH tells us that the man’s initial conviction, by his own admission, is limited, but he has an urgent, emphatic desire on behalf of his only child. And we are then told that that is good enough for a beginning.
EH astutely notes the plural pronouns the father uses in his plea: “have compassion on us, and help us.” The help needed was not for the child alone, but for the father himself as well. And in response to this new and still partial faith, Jesus heals the boy.
At this point EH states that he is addressing the youth of the Church, but then he clarifies that he is including under that rubric those young in age, young in years of membership or young in faith, which one way or another probably includes most of us.
He then offers a series of observations. Observation No. 1: Hold fast the ground already won. He observes how the father asserts his strength first, and only then acknowledges his limitation. “Hold fast to what you already know and stand strong until additional knowledge comes.”
Observation No. 2: Lead with Your Faith. Do not start your quest for faith by saying how much you do not have, leading as it were with your “unbelief.” In an image that is sure to become a classic, EH tells us “That is like trying to stuff a turkey through the beak!” He makes clear that he is not asking us to pretend to faith we do not have, but he is asking us to be true to the faith we do have. “Sometimes we act as if an honest declaration of doubt is a higher manifestation of moral courage than is an honest declaration of faith.” We should be as candid about our questions as we need to be; life is full of such questions on one subject or another, but don’t let those questions stand in the way of faith working its miracle.
A third observation (introduced by “Furthermore“) is that we need to realize that we have more faith than we may think if we will but pay attention to the fruits we experience from living the Gospel.
Don’t Freak Out! Well, that’s my way of saying it. EH says “don’t hyperventilate if from time to time issues arise that need to be examined, understood, and resolved.” They do and we will. “In this Church what we know will always trump what we do not know. And remember in this telestial world everyone is to walk by faith.”
So, EH observes, we need to be patient with human frailty, both our own and that of others. “Except in the case of his only perfect Begotten Son, imperfect people are all God has ever had to work with since time began.”
Last Observation: Ask for help. When doubt or difficulty comes, do not be afraid to ask for help. If we seek it as honestly and humbly as that father did, we can get it.
Know v. Believe. EH then tells the story of a 14-year old boy who recently said to him, a little hesitantly, “Brother Holland, I can’t say yet that I know the Church is true, but I believe it is.” EH then hugged that boy until his eyes bulged out. EH explained that “belief” is a precious word, and an even more precious act, and he need never apologize for “only believing.” Christ himself said, “Be not afraid, only believe,” a phrase that sent GBH into the mission field. Our AoF each begin with “We believe…” EH told the boy how proud he was of him for the honesty of his quest.
Then, with the advantage of an additional 60 years since he too was a newly believing 14-year old, he went on to tell some things he knows, and conveyed an Apostolic testimony, finally inviting us, if our faith is ever tested in this or any season, to lean on his.
“Hang on. Hope on. Honestly acknowledge your concerns but first fan the flame of your faith, because all things are possible to them that believe.”
So in summary:
- Hold fast to the ground already won.
- Lead with your faith.
- Upon reflection, you may realize that you have more faith than you thought.
- Don’t freak out. BREATHE!
- Ask for help.
- If you have to, lean on his faith.
I was particularly pleased to see EH’s allowance and even encouragement for framing one’s testimony in the language of faith (“I believe, I trust, I have faith that”) in contrast with the language of absolute assurance (“I know”), since my own practice has long been the former and not the latter. That may mean that I’m closer to that 14-year old boy than to an EH, but I can live with that.
Cross posted from By Common Consent
Even the Very Elect Can be Deceived
In my last installment I said that I would discuss some of the ways that fundamentalist thinking can unknowingly create stumbling blocks to our testimony. Before I get to that, however, I need to point out some important considerations about those who might be vulnerable to testimony damage.
It is significant that we ask: Who are those members who could potentially fall away because of hostile “intellectual” arguments? The answer is: all of us. We are told that in the last days “the very elect” (Matt. 24:24)—even the “elect according to the covenant” (JST Matt. 1:24)—could be deceived by “false Christs” and “false prophets.”
When we think of false Christs and false prophets we may envision lunatics who claim to be Jesus or perhaps radical leaders who would try to draw us into a faith of their own making. A false Christ or false prophet, however, would refer to anyone (religious or secular) who falsely claims the power and/or knowledge that leads to ultimate happiness and answers man’s greatest questions: Where did we come from? Why are we here? Where are we going?
Basically, any belief system that attempts to lead us down a path of thinking or behavior that draws us away from returning to Heavenly Father would count as a false Christ or false prophet. It is important therefore to note that we are told that such false teachings would even deceive the “very elect” and even those who made “covenants.”
History relates the tragic stories of other “elect” who lost their way—including one third of our pre-mortal brothers and sisters, Cain, Laman and Lemuel, Judas, the Book of Mormon Witnesses (although two returned), Sidney Rigdon (who, with Joseph, saw the Savior), and others. It should become apparent that all of us need to be on guard. Having a testimony now, or having had spiritual experiences in the past, doesn’t guarantee safety.
According to a 2001 informal poll of over 400 former members of the Church,[i] nearly two-thirds of the respondents had been active church members for at least 20 years, 58% had been married in the temple, and 59% had served missions. Former-members, of whom I am aware, include Relief Society Presidents, as well as Elder’s Quorum presidents, Bishops, and even a Mission President. A large percentage of former members undoubtedly had real testimonies and were active in their wards.
In the dream given to Lehi and Nephi they saw that many who had already “commenced” on the path to the tree of life “did lose their way” because of the mists of darkness (1 Ne. 8:23). An iron rod ran alongside the path to the tree and those who grabbed on to it were able to stay on the path even when blinded by the dark mists. Nephi saw that this iron rod represented the word of God (1 Ne. 11:25).
Those who stayed on the path, held on to the rod, and finally made it to the tree (the “love of God” [11:25]) and tasted of its fruit were not completely safe, however. Lehi saw that some of those who tasted the fruit did “cast their eyes about as if they were ashamed” (8:25). Why were they ashamed? They were scoffed at by those in the great and spacious building on the other side of the river (11:26-28). Nephi saw that his building represented “the world and the wisdom thereof” as well as the “pride of the world” (11: 35-36).
Some of the people who had traversed the long path, held on to the word of God, managed to stay on the path in spite of the mists of darkness, and finally tasted the fruit of God’s everlasting love, still lost focus of the power of goodness of God’s love (perhaps even looked to see if there was something better [“cast their eyes about”]) because of the “wisdom” of the world.
I’ve seen this happen myself. Members who have real testimonies, who are active in the Church, who not only hold leadership callings, but devote their times and talents to the Lord, who pray, pay tithing, hold family evenings, and live the commandments—I’ve seen them lose focus on their spiritual experiences because they discover something (or several things) that contradict their assumptions of non-doctrinal issues (although they may not realize that their concerns typically center on non-doctrinal issues).
Unless they recognize that their paradigms about those issues are either faulty, naïve, or incomplete, they may suddenly doubt their spiritual experiences and question (and often jettison) any witnesses they had previously received from the Holy Spirit.
The wisdom and pride of the critics in the world tells us that there is no such thing as spiritual experiences—that all such feelings are nothing more than emotions driven byconfirmation bias (this will be discussed in greater detail in later installments). Critics argue that not only are such sources unreliable but they give contradictory answers to different people throughout the world (another topic to be addressed later). Only science, reason, and intellect, they tell us, are valuable in determining truth.
While I’m a big fan of truth as acquired from science and I believe that there are many scientific evidences that support belief, it is not possible to know, or fully deny, the existence of God through scientific means alone.
The best two medicines with which we can inoculate our testimonies are: A) The recognition that “All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it” (D&C 93:30). In other words spiritual things are spiritually discerned. We can never know if God exists, that Jesus is the Christ, or that Joseph Smith beheld them both in his First Vision without tapping into the spiritual realm; and B) Many of our paradigms and assumptions about the intellectual aspects involving the scriptures, prophecy, and the nature of prophets, are often sophomoric. As Paul said: “When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things” (1 Corin. 13:11).
As we will discuss next time, it’s not childish to have different opinions on matters of non-doctrinal issues, but it is potentially dangerous to one’s testimony to not to recognize that there are differing opinions and approaches to many LDS topics, or to ascribe to those opinions the weight of doctrine.
_________________________________
[i] http://www.misterpoll.com/polls/16415/results
This article also appeared in Meridian Magazine.
Is Logical Thinking Compatible with Spiritual Thinking?
Some of you may have received something like this in an email from a friend:
Y0UR M1ND 15 R34D1NG 7H15 4U70M471C4LLY W17H0U7 3V3N 7H1NK1NG 4B0U7 17
How is our mind able to accurately decode the above sentence when many of the words are made up of more numbers than letters? Cognitive scientists tell us that our brains typically and quickly assemble clues from the environment to paint a picture of what’s around us while filling in the necessary assumptions.
“For emaxlpe, it deson’t mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod aepapr, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer are in the rghit pcale. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit pobelrm.”[i]
What does this have to do with challenges to an LDS testimony? I’ll get to that in a moment.
In order for the brain to make assumptions (generally based on past experiences) there needs to be some sort of context—such as the shapes of numbers or the first and last letters of a word. Concurrent words or scenarios also can provide context which can “prime” the brain into filling in the blanks with what is expected. In the following two-word combinations, for example, what is likely the second word? “Wash. So_p.” Most people will fill in the blank with an “a” thereby creating the word “soap”. If instead, however, I gave you this two-word combination: “Eat. So_p.” You would likely fill in the blank with a “u” for the word “soup.”
Dr. Daniel Kahneman (a non-LDS Israeli-American psychologist and Nobel Prize winner) argues that people—depending on the situation—either think “fast” (what he metaphorically refers to as “System 1” thinking) or “slow” (“System 2” thinking).[ii]
System 1 is our intuitive system that makes quick decisions (like reading the garbled words in the sentences above), while System 2 takes over when we have tougher puzzles such as complex math problems or other challenges that require more brain power. System 2 is lazy and avoids work unless it is forced to act. System 1 is always on and helps us navigate through our daily lives. Virtually all of us rely heavily on System 1 and we need the intuitive answers it provides. Without System 1 we couldn’t make quick enough decisions to walk, drive, or carry on a conversation.
When it comes to practically all beliefs (not just religious beliefs), it appears that a large part of our thinking depends on System 1 as well. While we may have a spiritual experience that taps into System 2 to tell us that Jesus is the Christ or that the Book of Mormon is the Word of God, System 1 takes over to fill in the blanks. When we read things in the scriptures, for example, most of us “recontextualize” or envision what we read in the context of the world around us.
This System 1 approach to scripture, Church history, and words from the Brethren, is fine when we draw on those resources in our quest for spiritual strength and enlightenment, but may fail us when we are confronted with challenging questions.
Research has shown that people who put their sole reliance on System 1 typically have a relatively high need for simplicity and absolute answers. Such persons are also generally more rigid and closed-minded and less likely to tolerate ambiguity.[iii] In other words, placing too much reliance on System 1 can lead to dogmatic or inflexible black and white thinking. This can set us up for big problems when we find that some of the issues associated with the Church are more complex than we might assume.
I should first note two important points:
1) The uneasiness that comes from discovering conflicting information is not unique to Mormonism or even religion, but plays a factor in all of those things in which we believe. The angst of discovering religion-critical complexities, however, is generally greater because religion can be a very important part of their lives. The greater the personal investment, the greater the distress.
2) The basic tenets of the Gospel are simple—they are not complex. We are told that the two greatest commandments are to love God and to love our fellow man (Matthew 22:26-40). Joseph Smith likewise said:
“The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.”[iv]
Non-doctrinal issues, however—those topics that deal with the historical and scientific aspects in which important religious events took place—are often more complex than some people have presumed.
And unfortunately, too many people—both members and non-members—seem to think that topics such as the breadth and depth of Noah’s flood, or the DNA make-up of ancient New World inhabitants, or the connection between the Joseph Smith Papyri and the Book of Abraham, are equal (or near equal) to doctrine. They are not.
When a member takes a rigid, dogmatic, and black and white approach to these non-doctrinal issues, they set themselves up for some major intellectual heartburn when they discover that their assumptions don’t hold water. Feeling foolish for putting their faith in such things (which are ancillary to real Gospel teachings), they often express feelings of betrayal and anguish to the point where they lose their faith in primary Gospel teachings as well.
From my experience the vast majority of members who leave because of “intellectual” difficulties with the church are those who take a black and white, rigid approach to the following issues: (1) How they assume scriptures and prophets should behave, compared to how they actually behave; (2) What they assume early LDS history should look like, compared to how it actually looks; or (3) What they assume science should be able to tell us about ancient Book of Mormon peoples, versus what science can actually ascertain.
System-1-conditioned people are not stupid or intellectually lazy, System 1 is the natural mode of thinking upon which we all rely for many of the decisions we make or beliefs we value. Learning how to think outside of System 1’s intuitive box may be part of the process of “putting off the natural man” (Mosiah 3:19) and can help us inoculate our testimony against any damage caused by challenging issues.
In the next several issues I hope to engage some of those things that seem to attract a fundamentalist, black and white approach of thinking in the hopes of showing that we can change our worldviews about non-doctrinal issues without sacrificing our spiritual testimonies of those things that really matter.
___________________________________________________
[i] Both of these examples can be found in “Breaking the Code: Why Yuor Barin Can Raed Tihs,” (10 February 2012) Discovery News (accessed 14 March 2013).
[ii] Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011).
[iii] Hal W. Hendrick, “Cognitive and Organizational Complexity and Behavior: Implications for Organizational Design and Leadership,” Information and Communication Technologies, Society and Human Beings: Theory and Framework, eds. Darek M. Haftor and Anita Mirijamdotter (Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference [IGI Global], 2011), 149.
This article also appeared in Meridian Magazine.
Mormon FAIR-Cast 135: Shaken Faith Syndrome, 2nd ed.
Podcast: Download (8.7MB)
Subscribe: RSS
How can we help family members or friends who are struggling with their faith in the gospel? What should someone do who experiences a crisis of faith? In this episode of Religion Today, which originally aired on KSL Radio on March 17, 2013, Martin Tanner talks with Michael R. Ash, author of Shaken Faith Syndrome. The second edition of this important book can be purchased at the FAIR Bookstore, here.
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. (Listeners will note that the first part of this recording is missing.)
Mormon FAIR-Cast 133: Apologetics Organizations
Podcast: Download (9.2MB)
Subscribe: RSS
In this episode of Religion Today, which originally aired on KSL Radio on November 11, 2012, Martin Tanner discusses FAIR and the Interpreter Foundation and the way in which they help to defend the Church and strengthen the faith of its members. 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.
