FAIR

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Come, Follow Me Resources

Philosophy

Three Conference Presentations Now Available to Help Parents, Leaders, and Other Teachers of Children and Youth

by Leave a Comment

 

by Cassandra Hedelius

Late last year, I started brainstorming suggestions for who we could invite to present at the 2021 FAIR conference. We usually look for presenters to counter criticisms of the church on issues like polygamy, Book of Mormon translation, and race. But in addition to these, I wanted this conference to provide more immediately vital resources for parents, building on John Gee’s excellent presentation in 2020. Children are bombarded with not only explicit arguments, but very subtle messages that shape their imaginations and moral judgment in ways that make it very difficult to accept divine authority and parental guidance. I’m the mother of three young children, and my dearest hope is to succeed at building their faith in the Lord, His church, and the prophets and other leaders He calls. I was determined to find speakers that would significantly help me and other parents like me. 

Around that time, I started reading a new book by Carl Trueman: The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self: Cultural Amnesia, Expressive Individualism, and the Road to Sexual Revolution. I was instantly captivated by Trueman’s skill at naming and explaining cultural forces that I had dimly intuited but never fully grasped. His bracing exposition gave me the consciousness and competence I need to shape my childrens’ worldviews instead of allowing them to be shaped by the world’s philosophies. [Read more…] about Three Conference Presentations Now Available to Help Parents, Leaders, and Other Teachers of Children and Youth

FAIR Voice Podcast #25: Interview with Blake Ostler

by

Podcast: Download (50.3MB)

Subscribe: RSS

Blake Ostler discusses the fourth volume of Exploring Mormon Thought: God’s Plan to Heal Evil with Hanna. He outlines many of the common solutions to the problem of evil, but focuses on the uniquely Latter-day Saint solution as well as providing excellent commentary on what it truly means to love God and to love someone.

Blake Ostler graduated from Brigham Young University in 1981, receiving a BA in Philosophy, summa cum laude, and a BS in Psychobiology, magna cum laude. He earned his JD at the University of Utah, cum laude, in 1985. From 1982 to 1985 he was a William Leary Scholar. He is fluent in Italian and French and conversant in Swedish, Spanish and German, and conducts scholarly research in Egyptian, Hebrew, Greek and Latin. Mr. Ostler has published numerous articles in professional philosophical journals including International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, Religious Studies, BYU Studies, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought and he is the author of the four volume series Exploring Mormon Thought.

Mr. Ostler is a partner in the Salt Lake City law firm of Mackey Price Thompson & Ostler. He is the past Chair for the Education Law Section of the Utah State Bar (1996), and past Chair for the Law for Clergy Section of the Utah State Bar (1990).

Hanna SeariacHanna Seariac is a MA student in Greek and Latin at Brigham Young University. She is currently writing a book on Latter-day Saint approach to theological stances as well as shorter pieces on prayers in scripture. She works as a research assistant on a biblical commentary and as a research assistant on early Latter-day Saint history. She values Jesus Christ, family, friends, hiking, baking, and good ice cream.

FAIR Voice Podcast #15: Worldview Apologetics with Joseph Lawal

by

Podcast: Download (30.0MB)

Subscribe: RSS

Joseph Lawal, a Classics and Philosophy student, as well as the creator of LDSPhilosophy (YouTube channel) comes on to speak about developing a worldview within apologetics to close off the philosophy series. Joseph illustrates what a worldview is, why it is effective, and how to develop one. This fascinating conversation helps us understand the interconnectedness of our beliefs. Next up on FAIR Voice is all things Book of Mormon apologetics!

Hanna SeariacHanna Seariac is a MA student in Greek and Latin at Brigham Young University. She is writing a book on the history of the priesthood and another one that responds systematically to anti-LDS literature. She works as a research assistant on a biblical commentary and as a producer on a news show. She values Jesus Christ, family, friends, hiking, baking, and really good ice cream.

FAIR Voice Podcast #12: Interview with Tarik D. LaCour

by

Podcast: Download (30.2MB)

Subscribe: RSS

Tarik D. LaCour is a Ph.D student in philosophy and MA student in neuroscience at Texas A&M. Primary research interests are in philosophy of neuroscience, philosophy of mind, moral psychology and epistemology. He is a traditional Latter-day Saint and author of the blog Mad Dog Naturalist. He has interest in developing rigorous apologetic arguments rooted in an empirical philosophical approach and plans on continuing his contributions to Latter-day Saint apologetics.

 

Hanna SeariacHanna Seariac is a MA student in Greek and Latin at Brigham Young University. She is writing a book on the history of the priesthood and another one that responds systematically to anti-LDS literature. She works as a research assistant on a biblical commentary and as a producer on a news show. She values Jesus Christ, family, friends, hiking, baking, and really good ice cream.

 

Applying Heidegger to Religious Conviction

by

by Jeffrey Thayne and Ed Gantt, cross-posted from Latter-day Saint Philosopher

A number of philosophers (Martin Heidegger, Hubert Dreyfus, and others) argue that there are two basic “ways of being,” or modes in which we live-out our lives and make sense of the world:  the ready-to-hand and the present-at-hand. The first denotes our ongoing, active, purposeful, and engaged involvement in relationships and activities as we go about our daily life. The second identifies the more abstract, detached, reflective, or more “intellectual” or “theoretical” way in which we sometimes take up the world and our place in it.

The following example from Dreyfus may help to illustrate this distinction:

We hand the blind man a cane and ask him to tell us what properties it has. After hefting and feeling it, he tells us that it is light, smooth, about three feet long, and so on; it is occurrent for him. But when the man starts to manipulate the cane, he loses his awareness of the cane itself; he is aware only of the curb (or whatever object the cane touches) or, if all is going well, he is not even aware of that, but of his freedom to walk, or perhaps only what he is talking about with his friend.[1]

[Read more…] about Applying Heidegger to Religious Conviction

Book Review: If Truth Were a Child: Essays

by

Available from the FairMormon Bookstore

George B. Handley is a humanities professor at Brigham Young University. He has a BA from Stanford University and an MA and PhD from UC Berkely. This book, part of the Maxwell Institute’s “Living Faith” series, is a collection of personal essays he has written about “the seamlessness of humanities and belief, intellect and faith” (page XI).

Handley explains in the preface that “What keeps me in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint and what keeps me working at living according to its principles is the fundamental fact that I accept the tenets of my faith as plausible, compelling, and deeply moving. They make sense to me intellectually. More importantly, they have taken root in my very being as a result of acts of faith that brought personal witnesses of the gospel’s spiritual truths” (page XII).

There are several essays that I particularly enjoyed. In “Why I Am a Christian,” he says “We talk of sin as a deliberate rejection of God, but sin often feels to me more like being a slave to myself, unable to escape my own psychology, genes, upbringing, habits, or personality even and especially when I am aware that life calls me to better habits and deeper commitments” (page 3). He further explains, “nothing has given me more confidence in the living reality of Jesus Christ as the Redeemer and resurrected Son of God than the way that my trust in him has converted my awareness of my insufficiencies into hope, into a palpable increase of love for myself, for others, and for life itself that is beyond my natural instincts…. A willingness to repent and then to declare my faith has opened me to deeper appreciation for the meaning and power of Christ’s atonement” (pages 4-5). He also makes the important distinction that “Christ’s pure love is not the same thing as blanket tolerance for all human behavior or belief” (page 7). [Read more…] about Book Review: If Truth Were a Child: Essays

Book Review – Who is Truth? Reframing Our Questions for a Richer Faith

by

Available in the FairMormon Bookstore

Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6). We take this literally for the words “way” and “life,” but what if we also took it literally for the word “truth”? In their book Who What is Truth? Reframing Our Questions for a Richer Faith, that is exactly what authors Jeffrey L. Thayne and Edwin E. Gantt encourage us to do, changing our way of thinking from truth as an idea (this turns out to be rooted in Greek philosophy) to truth as a person (Hebrew thought).

The chapter headings give a good summary of what is covered: “What if truth is a person?,” “The ancient roots of person-truth,” “Faith in ideas, or faithfulness to a Person?,” “Knowing God vs. believing ideas about Him,” “Person-truth does not give us control,” “Knowing person-truth through covenant,” “Our on-and-off relationship with person-truth,” “What it means to be an authority on truth,” “The archnemesis of person-truth,” “What is sin, if truth is a person?,” “Rethinking the atonement of Christ,” and “Person-truth in a world of science and reason.” There is also a conclusion chapter, a list of further readings, and appendixes with more on Greek and Hebrew thought and questions and answers.

I was initially skeptical when offered this book to review. But it claimed to offer help for those having a faith crisis, and to strengthen faith in Jesus Christ and the Restoration, so I thought it would be worth a look. I was pleasantly surprised, and found myself agreeing with the conclusions (the good fruit being brought forth), even as I am still processing the explanations that led up to them. The authors anticipated skepticism, and they addressed all the potential red flags that came up in my mind as I read. [Read more…] about Book Review – Who is Truth? Reframing Our Questions for a Richer Faith

Courtroom Analogy

by

Guest post by Paul Brooks from The Reasonable Mormon

Not guilty vs innocent

 

 

Since the organization of the Church in 1830, some form of the question “Is the Church true?” has been prevalent among proponents and detractors alike. While much can be said to directly answer the question, much can also be said about nature of the question itself. This post demonstrates why believing the Church is “not true,” or not believing the Church is “true,” does not necessarily mean believing the Church is “false” or worthy of abandoning faith.

Imagine the following fictional conversation between two critics of the Church we shall call Simon and Peter:

Simon: I’ve just been speaking with a friend who asked me to provide a good argument that the LDS Church is false.

Peter: Oh right, how did you get on?

Simon: I couldn’t do it. Everything I raised was contended with good counter evidence, many that I hadn’t heard before.

Peter: OK, so what now?

Simon: Well there isn’t one reason to think it’s false so I guess it’s true. I’m going to start attending each week.

Now this doesn’t usually happen and it’s obvious that something is wrong. Just because Simon couldn’t demonstrate the LDS Church was false, it doesn’t necessarily mean he should believe that the Church is true. We would rightfully expect Simon to be troubled by his experience but not to start attending Sunday services.

But look what happens when we flip this on its head, now imagine two believing members of the Church in a similar conversation:

 Simon: I’ve just been speaking with a friend who asked me to provide a good argument that the LDS Church is true.

 Peter: Oh right, how did you get on?

 Simon: I couldn’t do it. Everything I raised, was contended with good counter evidence, many that I hadn’t heard before.

 Peter: OK, so what now?

 Simon: Well there isn’t one reason to think it’s true so I guess it’s false. I’m going to stop attending each week.

Again, something is wrong but we do see this in our own experience. Sadly this is an argument from ignorance, which is a logical fallacy and occurs when something is believed to be false simply because it has not been shown to be true (or vice versa).

So let’s explore a little more why this is a problem.

In everyday language we use the words “not true” and “false” interchangeably, but they are actually distinct. Usually the distinction doesn’t get us into trouble, but in this situation it may prove highly problematic. Imagine risking eternal salvation based on an error in logic!

The key point to remember is that something that is “not true,” is not necessarily “false.” This would constitute a false dichotomy, meaning that only two options are presented but in reality there are more than two options available. The condition “not true” is a negation of “true,” but also encompasses other conditions in addition to “false.”  

To put it another way:

  • Something “true” is clearly “not false”, but something that is “not true” is not necessarily “false” – for example it may be unknown or nonsensical
  • Something “false” is clearly “not true”, but something that is “not false” is not necessarily “true” – for example again, it may be unknown or nonsensical

This principle is demonstrated in a courtroom, where a case is presented to the judge and the jury for them to evaluate whether the person accused is “guilty” or “not guilty.” This is done by setting a threshold for guilt, such as “beyond reasonable doubt.” In the context of a courtroom, it is important to note:

  • The judge and jury are not deciding between “guilty” and “innocent.” They are looking to see if there is enough evidence to consider them “guilty,” or else consider them “not guilty.”
  • If the person is found to be “not guilty” they are not found to be “innocent,” they were already presumed innocent as a matter of principle before the hearing. It would require another case to evaluate the evidence as to whether the person is actually “innocent” or “not innocent.”
  • A person could theoretically be found “not guilty” and then found “not innocent!”  

Usually faithful members of the Church when called upon to give reasons or an argument that the Church is true, in addition to a spiritual witness, might include things such as:

  • The visions of Joseph Smith
  • The hundreds of statements by the Book of Mormon witnesses
  • The complexity and beauty of the Book of Mormon

However after reading material that challenges these reasons, members may feel they are left without any compelling reason or argument and potentially doubt their own experience of the Spirit. Even if they previously had many reasons for belief, if each one fails then a problem arises. As atheist-turned-deist Anthony Flew once said:

“If one leaky bucket will not hold water there is no reason to think that ten can” (1)

So what should be remembered if you no longer feel you have a compelling or sufficient reason to believe that the Church is true?

The first thing to remember is that your threshold for truth is naturally subjective. Regarding levels of confidence, John Welch has observed:

How much evidence do we need in order to draw a certain conclusion? Answering this question is another choice that combines and bridges faith and evidence.

…a survey conducted in the Eastern District of New York among ten federal judges determined that the phrase “beyond a reasonable doubt” ranged from 76 percent to 95 percent certainty (although most were on the high end of this range). “Clear and convincing evidence” covered from 60 percent to 75 percent. Obviously, a degree of subjectivity is again involved in deciding what level of certitude should be required or has been achieved in a given case.

…In a religious setting, no arbiter prescribes or defines the level of evidence that will sustain a healthy faith. All individuals must set for themselves the levels of proof that they will require… Few people realize how much rides on their personal choice in these matters and that their answer necessarily originates in the domain of faith. (2)

The second thing to remember is that two people can fully agree on the evidence but come to different conclusions based on their assumptions and expectations of what a true Church would look like. From a Church historian’s perspective, Davis Bitton has said:

What’s potentially damaging or challenging to faith depends entirely, I think, on one’s expectations, and not necessarily history. Any kind of experience can be shattering to faith if the expectation is such that one is not prepared for the experience.

…One moves into the land of history, so to speak, and finds shattering incongruities which can be devastating to faith. But the problem is with the expectation, not with the history (3).

The third and most important thing to remember is that irrespective of your level of confidence and your expectations, no longer believing the Church is true is not the same as believing the Church is false (remember the courtroom analogy of “not guilty” and “innocent”). Flip the question around and see if you believe that the Church is false. To say that the Church is false, is a positive statement that carries a rather heavy burden of proof.

If you believe the Church is false, then this would most likely include the Book of Mormon too. You would need to believe there is a good explanation for:

With the above in mind, it would be difficult to honestly conclude the Book of Mormon is false. Dan Peterson at the FairMormon conference in 2016 said that:

…the alternative explanations just don’t work and they get more and more complex and it’s just too much for me, and so I’ve said sometimes that I simply don’t have the faith to disbelieve Joseph Smith’s story. I just can’t get there. I can’t do it. And I’ve tried. I’ve really tried… (4).

Again, from Church historian Davis Bitton:

Let’s get one thing clear. There is nothing in church history that leads inevitably to the conclusion that the church is false. There is nothing that requires the conclusion that Joseph Smith was a fraud. How can I say this with such confidence? For the simple reason that the Latter-day Saint historians who know the most about our church history have been and are faithful, committed members of the church. More precisely, there are faithful Latter-day Saint historians who know as much about this subject as any anti-Mormon or anyone who writes on the subject from an outside perspective. In fact, with few exceptions, they know much, much more. They have not been blown away. They have not gnashed their teeth and abandoned their faith. To repeat, they have found nothing that forces the extreme conclusion our enemies like to promote (5).

This consideration could very likely put the person in a limbo period, and in terms of the courtroom analogy, somewhere between “not guilty” and “not innocent.”

As shown above, no longer believing the Church is true, is not concluding the Church is false or necessarily worthy of abandoning faith. In the same way a critic would still need a positive reason to believe the Church is true, a member should still need a positive reason to believe the Church is false.

In many cases, potential reasons for believing the Church is false are based on our own expectations of God or the Church, such as “A true Church would not allow (or be permitted to allow) XYZ to happen, but XYZ did happen.” When we examine our assumptions and expectations, we may see that some are quite questionable. Even our opinion of sufficient conditions for the Church being false may be questionable.

In summary, if there are things you have come across which challenge your testimony, it is likely that there are still things to come across which would strengthen your testimony, such as over 200 KnoWhys from Book of Mormon Central or 80 evidences supporting the Prophet Joseph Smith from Michael R. Ash.

Ultimately faith is a choice and we can choose to be faithful, or choose not to be faithful, to the light that we have been given, remembering the promise that:

…he that receiveth light, and continueth in God, receiveth more light; and that light groweth brighter and brighter until the perfect day. (D&C 50:24)

Further reading

I Don’t Have a Testimony of the History of the Church

Recommended reading – Positive evidence for Mormonism

References

1. Antony G. N. Flew, God and Philosophy (London, 1966), 63.

2. John Welch. 2016. The Power of Evidence in the Nurturing of Faith. [ONLINE] Available at:http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1082&index=4. [Accessed 21 October 2016].

3. Davis Bitton. 2004. I Don’t Have a Testimony of the History of the Church. [ONLINE] Available at:http://publications.mi.byu.edu/publications/review/16/2/S00017-5176ad2f5804e17Bitton.pdf. [Accessed 24 October 2016].

4. Daniel Peterson. 2016. The Logic Tree of Life, or, Why I Can’t Manage to Disbelieve. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2016-fairmormon-conference/logic-tree-life. [Accessed 19 October 2016].

5. Davis Bitton. 2004. I Don’t Have a Testimony of the History of the Church. [ONLINE] Available at:http://publications.mi.byu.edu/publications/review/16/2/S00017-5176ad2f5804e17Bitton.pdf. [Accessed 24 October 2016].

The Probability of Mormonism as Divine

by

FAIRMormon welcomes Paul Brooks as a guest blogger.

Paul is from the United Kingdom, runs the website reasonablemormon.com and volunteers at Book of Mormon Central. For a good example of the use of Bayesian analysis in apologetics see G. Bruce Schaalje.

The Probability of Mormonism as Divine

A review

Introduction

“The Probability of Mormonism as Divine” (authored by R. Keith Widdowson and published by CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform) uses the Bayesian probability theory to mathematically assess the hypothesis “Mormonism is divine.” The book concludes that the primary hypothesis has a 30% probability of being true.

The first thing to note is that this level of probability is described as not being worthy of abandoning belief:

According to my findings, given our current state of knowledge, it would be reasonable to be a Mormon believer (1).

Naturally when using Bayes’ Theorem, there is a huge amount of subjective scoring involved. Over the course of the methodology used in the book, over 400 individual scores/decisions are made which all contribute to the final probability.

The two-stage mathematical process used to arrive at the conclusion is well documented and the calculations are all correct, but unfortunately I found the final probability was made quite unreliable due to:

  1. The sub-hypotheses selected
  2. The scoring criteria selected
  3. The evidence selected and conclusions drawn
  4. The characteristics of God selected

Each of these will be discussed below. [Read more…] about The Probability of Mormonism as Divine

4th Watch 19: Why are Mormons prejudiced?

by

Podcast: Download (36.8MB)

Subscribe: RSS

4thWatch SmallLike all human begins we have our own personal preferences about everything in life.  There are things, people, ideas and places that we may like and prefer that others dislike that have nothing to do with being prejudiced.  When it comes to real prejudice we need to define what we are talking about.

In this podcast Brother Scarisbrick relates how our understanding of different times and cultural norms can change as we gain further light and knowledge.

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