FAIR

Blog

RiseUp Podcast: Putting Grease on the Iron Rod

by

Podcast: Download (51.5MB)

Subscribe: RSS

In this episode of RiseUp (that’s a bit longer than others–be patient), Nick Galieti looks at the way people use the scriptures in making decisions about social issues, about moral choices, and the importance of using the words of Prophets and Apostles in that effort. The text/transcript of the presentation is included below.

RiseUp is now in its own podcast stream for parents and youth who only want to subscribe to RiseUp podcasts. You can do this through iTunes at the following link:

https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/fairmormon-blog-riseup/id924725870?mt=2

FairMormon-Rise-Up-iTunes-logo

Episode transcript:

Prophets teach the importance of keeping the commandments, and of following the example set by Jesus Christ. These same prophets teach the importance of following the spirit as our guide in doing just that. Then I read stories like the one in 1 Nephi where Nephi is commanded to kill King Laban, clearly a directive that is not in line with the commandments as he understood them. This is a challenging question that some have that is often applied in contexts that may or may not apply to the story of King Laban.

Some have sought to use this example in 1 Nephi as evidence that we should be more open to the exceptions to the Lord’s rules. Meaning, if Nephi can kill someone, then maybe the Lord is okay if I do ___________________, (fill in the blank).

This recently came up in a “conversation” (I will put conversation in air quotes), on Facebook. The question was asked, Is it wrong for a Latter-day Saint to buy someone a cup of coffee? Some were saying that there was nothing wrong with it because not drinking coffee is my covenant choice, and that may not be the case with others. While others said something along the lines that it was not something another may have chosen, while it may not be their covenant choice, our covenants don’t include promotion of or supporting practices that are contrary to the laws of God for others. In the course of the debate, the story of King Laban in 1 Nephi was used to make the point, that we should be open to God inspiring us to buy a cup of coffee for someone just as Nephi was open to the Lord inspiring him to Kill Laban.

The whole conversation made for an interesting debate to say the least. But the use of that story gave me the greatest pause. Was Nephi’s telling of that story meant to give license for us to find ways to not keep the commandments generally? There are other times where, most often referred to by others in the Old Testament, where inspired individuals have been asked to do things that seem to have some kind of cognitive dissonance attached to it, where it seems hard to make sense of the contradiction at first. Why would Abraham be asked to kill his son? Those sorts of stories are not always easy to understand, and to be honest, sometimes those things may take years to understand. Until that time comes though, we might be able to do our best to re-examine these stories and see if we can find more understanding from these stories. That way we don’t base our own life philosophies on incomplete scriptural understanding as much as possible.

So, let’s use 1 Nephi as the basis for our discussion here. First, lets read the story of Nephi and his confrontation with Laban. Nephi was given a commandment, a quest of sorts, by his prophet father, to obtain the Brass plates, the record of Lehi’s genealogy, but also the history and teachings that made up the spiritual sources for their day. After presenting their earthly possessions to Laban in exchange for the plates, after what amounts to saying “pretty please Laban” Nephi and his brother’s requests were rejected and at one point their lives were threatened leaving some of the Brothers with a sense of failure and rejection. Those brothers Laman and Lemuel even attacked their brother Nephi as some expression of their anger and frustration with their situation. This is also the same instance where an Angel comes to these brothers and admonishes them to continue in their quest, and that Laban would be delivered into their hands. This brings us to 1 Nephi chapter 4 verse 1:

When, in this conversation about the individual who wanted to be able to buy coffee for someone with some sense of approval from others, at least the people on Facebook, this story was used to encourage people to use the spirit to see if God wants us to buy coffee for someone using Nephi slaying Laban as the basis for such a decision, I asked myself, does this scripture work as justification for such an action?
1 And it came to pass that I spake unto my brethren, saying: Let us go up again unto Jerusalem, and let us be faithful in keeping the commandments of the Lord; for behold he is mightier than all the earth, then why not mightier than Laban and his fifty, yea, or even than his tens of thousands?

(This is a question we could often ask ourselves when faced with tasks from the Lord that seem difficult, or that there is a lot of opposition to us accomplishing those things. For me sometimes I see missionary work this way, defending the church online, there is so much opposition, but so much that we have been encouraged to do. When I start to see the challenge more than the commandment, I can think of this question that Nephi is asking, is the Lord not mightier than all opposition, mightier than even death? I say, yes. And then I realize that I shouldn’t look so much at the challenge but more the commandment.)

2 Therefore let us go up; let us be strong like unto Moses; for he truly spake unto the waters of the Red Sea and they divided hither and thither, and our fathers came through, out of captivity, on dry ground, and the armies of Pharaoh did follow and were drowned in the waters of the Red Sea.

3 Now behold ye know that this is true; and ye also know that an angel hath spoken unto you; wherefore can ye doubt? Let us go up; the Lord is able to deliver us, even as our fathers, and to destroy Laban, even as the Egyptians.

(Nephi is a master at using the scriptures to give him strength and direction. The spirit had guided him, angels had guided him, but he still also drew strength from the scriptures, the story of Moses. One of the ways this is possible is that he studied them enough that they were on his mind. People that tend to play sports use a lot of sports metaphors when they teach. People who watch a lot movies will reference movie a scene or a line in a movie because these are things they are most familiar with. Nephi, was familiar with the scriptures, with the story of Moses. But he also recognizes that the miracles that happened to others can have application in his circumstances as well. In Nephi’s culture, in Jerusalem and Israelite culture, Moses was a most important figure. But here is Nephi thinking, if the Lord can deliver Moses when given a task from the Lord, then the Lord can help me as well.

This reminds me of Moroni 7 where Moroni asks the questions, “Wherefore, my beloved brethren, have miracles ceased because Christ hath ascended into heaven, and hath sat down on the right hand of God, to claim of the Father his rights of mercy which he hath upon the children of men? For he hath answered the ends of the law, and he claimeth all those who have faith in him; and they who have faith in him will cleave unto every good thing; wherefore he advocateth the cause of the children of men; and he dwelleth eternally in the heavens. And because he hath done this, my beloved brethren, have miracles ceased? Behold I say unto you, Nay; neither have angels ceased to minister unto the children of men.” Even Moroni, when compiling the record of the Book of Mormon could look back on the entire record and see that from Moses, to Nephi, and even to his own day, miracles will continue. They may not all be the parting of a sea, or the killing of an evil ruler, but they happen. Moroni puts this in a few versus later, “And Christ hath said: If ye will have faith in me ye shall have power to do whatsoever thing is expedient in me.” Nephi knew that. If we are to understand Nephi’s next choices, we need to put ourselves in the same mindset or we won’t begin to understand the principles upon which the Lord was able to communicate with Nephi in the very hour it was needed. If Nephi didn’t trust the Lord and in his ability to “get the job done,” Nephi probably wouldn’t have “gotten the job done either.)

4 Now when I had spoken these words, they were yet wroth, and did still continue to murmur; nevertheless they did follow me up until we came without the walls of Jerusalem.

5 And it was by night; and I caused that they should hide themselves without the walls. And after they had hid themselves, I, Nephi, crept into the city and went forth towards the house of Laban.

(I don’t know what the brothers were murmuring about it they were just going to stay outside the city. Nephi had the hard job. Funny how it is sometimes the people with the least amount of work that do the most complaining.)

6 And I was led by the Spirit, not knowing beforehand the things which I should do.

7 Nevertheless I went forth, and as I came near unto the house of Laban I beheld a man, and he had fallen to the earth before me, for he was drunken with wine.

8 And when I came to him I found that it was Laban.

(Now, this here is where some of our conversation on Facebook diverted a bit. So pay closer attention to the principles here. Laban was not sick, Laban was not perfectly fine, he was drunk, so much so that he had basically passed out in the street. Here he was in front of Nephi, prepared by the hand of the Lord.)

9 And I beheld his sword, and I drew it forth from the sheath thereof; and the hilt thereof was of pure gold, and the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine, and I saw that the blade thereof was of the most precious steel.

(I have read this passage several times, but this time it made me wonder, why, of all the things that a person could do upon finding a drunk person passing out in front of him, would Nephi grab the sword and kind of admire it’s workmanship? Why record that this was a pretty impressive weapon? I still don’t have an answer, but I hope to find one in my study.)

10 And it came to pass that I was constrained by the Spirit that I should kill Laban; but I said in my heart: Never at any time have I shed the blood of man. And I shrunk and would that I might not slay him.

(constrained is an interesting word that I decided to look up and to see why that was the word chosen. It seems interesting because in one definition of the word constrain is talks about limiting or restricting the extent or activity of something. To another definition it is to compel or force someone toward a particular course of action. And to yet another definition it is to cause to appear unnaturally forced, typically because of embarrassment. So if I was to mix these definitions, perhaps what this is meaning is that Nephi was being focused on a singular task, he was compelled beyond what his natural inclination would have been to then kill Laban. Which is understandable, and we will talk about that more in just a second.)

11 And the Spirit said unto me again: Behold the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands. Yea, and I also knew that he had sought to take away mine own life; yea, and he would not hearken unto the commandments of the Lord; and he also had taken away our property.

(In this situation the spirit began to work not just with Nephi’s heart, because his heart was shrinking from the task, again, understandably. But the spirit also works with the mind. That is a key here, a really big key. Nephi didn’t just go with his first gut reaction, and neither did the spirit. There was reason, there was something else that Nephi needed to know in order for him to be able to make the choice correctly. That was that if he didn’t kill Laban, Laban would likely have him killed – and already tried to previously. Then the next couple verses go on to further explain how the spirit spoke to Nephi’s mind.)

12 And it came to pass that the Spirit said unto me again: Slay him, for the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands;

13 Behold the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes. It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief.

(How can killing someone be a good thing? Nephi has been taught for so long that killing was not just wrong, but a big no-no. Yet, here it is, the choice and the spirit giving him righteous motives. The next part is equally as important. Because after the spirit tells something to Nephi, the inspiration for Nephi continues, but Nephi then takes what the spirit taught him now, in the present, and mixed it with what he had learned and been taught from the past.)

14 And now, when I, Nephi, had heard these words, I remembered the words of the Lord which he spake unto me in the wilderness, saying that: Inasmuch as thy seed shall keep my commandments, they shall prosper in the land of promise.

15 Yea, and I also thought that they could not keep the commandments of the Lord according to the law of Moses, save they should have the law.

16 And I also knew that the law was engraven upon the plates of brass.

17 And again, I knew that the Lord had delivered Laban into my hands for this cause—that I might obtain the records according to his commandments.

(Some might argue that this is Nephi rationalizing. However, rationalizing tends to take place when we first decide that we want to do something, and then we find a way to justify doing it. Nephi didn’t want to do this. He had to be constrained by the spirit, the spirit and angels, had to come and give him the additional reason and strength to move forward. This story shows the wrestle that even the greatest of the prophets we find in the scriptures will encounter in their lives. Prophet’s have to make tough decisions all the time. Decisions that don’t seem to fit with the secular understanding that we hear so often in the media or from people we are around at school and work.

In our own lives we have been given commandments, standards, tasks to work towards, and the Lord will provide a way for us to accomplish them. In some of those cases the way that the Lord will accomplish those things is with our help, and our best efforts. But like Nephi we will be inspired, we will know what we are supposed to do as we trust in the Lord. Additionally, we might find that the spirit will guide us using a mix of new information, scriptural information, the teachings of prophets, but we will also be asked to use our own minds in coming to a decision. This is how agency works. God doesn’t want puppets, he wants prophets, he wants us to learn and come to make choices based on revelation. Those choices become our tutor as much as the spirit does. Then Nephi says:)

18 Therefore I did obey the voice of the Spirit, and took Laban by the hair of the head, and I smote off his head with his own sword.

I want to play a quote from Jeffrey R. Holland, from back when he was President of BYU. He talked about obedience, and about the challenges that we face in our daily lives using this story from 1 Nephi 3 and 4. I want to give this story from 1 Nephi more understanding before we bring it back to our original premise with the whole coffee thing. Remember, we are using this story as an example of how you can apply the scriptures in your own life with your own challenges, and especially those challenges where there seems to be so much opposition.

(Play Jeffrey R. Holland Clip – The Will of the Father in all things.)

Obedience is the first law of heaven, but in case you haven’t noticed, some of these commandments are not easy, and we frequently may seem to be in for much more than we bargained for. At least if we are truly serious about becoming a saint, I think we will find that is the case.

Let me use an example from what is often considered by foes, and even by some friends, as the most unsavory moment in the entire Book of Mormon. I choose it precisely because there is so much in it that has given offense to many. It is pretty much a bitter cup all the way around.

I speak of Nephi’s obligation to slay Laban in order to preserve a record, save a people, and ultimately lead to the restoration of the gospel in the dispensation of the fulness of times. How much is hanging in the balance as Nephi stands over the drunken and adversarial Laban I cannot say, but it is a very great deal indeed.

The only problem is that we know this, but Nephi does not. And regardless of how much is at stake, how can he do this thing? He is a good person, perhaps even a well-educated person. He has been taught from the very summit of Sinai “Thou shalt not kill.” And he has made gospel covenants.

“I was constrained by the Spirit that I should kill Laban; but . . . I shrunk and would that I might not slay him” (1 Nephi 4:10). We don’t know why those plates could not have been obtained some other way—perhaps accidentally left at the plate polishers one night or maybe falling out the back of Laban’s chariot on a Sabbath afternoon drive.

For that matter, why didn’t Nephi just leave this story out of the book altogether? Why didn’t he say something like, “And after much effort and anguish of spirit, I did obtain the plates of Laban and did depart into the wilderness unto the tent of my father?” At the very least he might have buried the account somewhere in the Isaiah chapters, thus guaranteeing that it would have gone undiscovered up to this very day.

But there it is, squarely in the beginning of the book—page 8—where even the most casual reader will see it and must deal with it. It is not intended that either Nephi or we be spared the struggle of this account.

I believe that story was placed in the very opening verses of a 531-page book and then told in painfully specific detail in order to focus every reader of that record on the absolutely fundamental gospel issue of obedience and submission to the communicated will of the Lord. If Nephi cannot yield to this terribly painful command, if he cannot bring himself to obey, then it is entirely probable that he can never succeed or survive in the tasks that lie just ahead.

“I will go and do the things which the Lord hath commanded” (1 Nephi 3:7). I confess that I wince a little when I hear that promise quoted so casually among us. Jesus knew what that kind of commitment would entail, and so now does Nephi. And so will a host of others before it is over. That vow took Christ to the cross on Calvary, and it remains at the heart of every Christian covenant. “I will go and do the things which the Lord hath commanded.” Well, we shall see.

(End clip)

There we have it. A pretty good digesting of 1 Nephi 3 and 4, Nephi being told to kill Laban. What did you learn? What did the spirit tell you as we went through these relatively short passages? Remember, that like Nephi you need to be open to what the spirit tells you, and you need to take what you are feeling and correlate that, or put it together with what you already know from the scriptures and what you have heard from the Prophet’s and apostles.

So, what then of our original premise, the question of should Mormon’s buy coffee for someone? And is the story of Nephi killing Laban an accurate explanation or justification for someone doing so? What did the spirit tell you? What do you know from reading the scriptures? What have the prophet’s taught?

Well, for me, should such an opportunity arise to buy coffee for someone, my first reaction would be to say no—but that it would be best if I made that clear before going out or ordering the food, not when the check came. I actually felt like the decision to not buy them coffee could also be turned into a positive—a missionary moment where I could explain the word of wisdom and that I have made promises to God to not partake in those things, and to a certain extent I made a promise to do my part to help encourage others to live similarly. The only way this would work if done in a spirit of love and not boasting or condemnation. I would also explain that while it is their choice to buy their own coffee, it is my choice to not encourage its purchase and consumption and I hope they can respect that. I wouldn’t ask a hindu to buy me a beef steak, I wouldn’t ask a jewish person to buy me something that wasn’t kosher. I wouldn’t ask someone who isn’t politically or socially aligned with a particular company or organization to support those organizations so that I could have a free meal. So why would the person I take out to dinner want me to buy them coffee against my principles and religion?

After thinking that, I wanted to confirm what I was feeling had some Holy Spirit witness to it, so I tried to address that answer with what may have been taught on the subject from modern day prophet’s and apostles. When I listen to general conference, and I have listened to a few, or when I read magazines and books, I don’t recall ever reading a passage where a prophet or apostle endorsed buying coffee for a co-worker as a way of being a good Latter-day Saint. I have never heard someone say that being a Christian means buying things for people, let alone something that is not in line with Church teachings on the Word of Wisdom. I HAVE heard President Monson say this recently:

(Play Dare to Stand Alone Clip from October 2011)

As we go about living from day to day, it is almost inevitable that our faith will be challenged. We may at times find ourselves surrounded by others and yet standing in the minority or even standing alone concerning what is acceptable and what is not. Do we have the moral courage to stand firm for our beliefs, even if by so doing we must stand alone? It is essential that we are able to face—with courage—whatever challenges come our way.

(End Clip)

What then of courage to live the gospel, to RiseUp to the standards that we know to be true? Well, in that same talk, President Monson gave this quote:

In Lehi’s vision of the tree of life, found in 1 Nephi 8, Lehi sees, among others, those who hold to the iron rod until they come forth and partake of the fruit of the tree of life, which we know is a representation of the love of God. And then, sadly, after they partake of the fruit, some are ashamed because of those in the “great and spacious building,” who represent the pride of the children of men, who are pointing fingers at them and scoffing at them; and they fall away into forbidden paths and are lost. What a powerful tool of the adversary is ridicule and mockery! Do we have the courage to stand strong and firm in the face of such difficult opposition?

(end clip)

What do you know, another key insight from 1 Nephi. After I came to my conclusion and shared my feelings with this Facebook group, I found that I was being ridiculed, even by those who profess to be members of the church. I wondered why I would be treated that way when all I was doing was sharing my testimony of keeping the commandments, of finding ways to turn challenging situations into a positive missionary experience. Then I thought to Lehi’s vision of the Tree of Life. The great and spacious building was filled with individuals who had left the Iron Rod some of them were even individuals who had partaken of the fruit of the Tree of Life, felt mocked for doing so, and left to join that crowd. Were these the same people? Was I having my own Tree of Life/Great and Spacious Building moment? Perhaps. But I also learned a key insight that was happening, and it happened from the beginning of the post on the Facebook group and I didn’t even see it: The question itself wasn’t based on someone wanting to know right and wrong, it was to stir up conversation, stir up the hearts of men to contend with one another about an issue that can be heavily influenced by social convention that is at odds with gospel teachings.

In one respect, the whole question was designed to put grease on the Iron Rod. Sometimes we may find in our time on the internet, in discussing issues with others, that we may find ourselves not inside the walls of the city, fulfilling the Lord’s commandments, but outside the city wall murmuring at those who are trying to get the Lord’s work done. Sometimes there are those who are simply trying to make the Iron Rod something slippery and hard to hang on to.

This story in 1 Nephi with Nephi slaying Laban has application in the importance of following the spirit regardless of what we perceive as operating within the Lord’s boundaries, but it is not to be used as license for doing whatever we feel like or for following social convention as some exception to the Lord’s rule. What this story teaches me is that if you have been given a task where millions of eternal lives are based off the task at hand, and that you find yourselves physically threatened with complete justification in the defense of your life by buying someone a cup of coffee, and the spirit constrains you in that very moment that the moment was prepared for you to accomplish this great task, well, then who am I to stand in the way of such inspiration. But, when Nephi was told by the spirit that it is better that one should perish than a whole nation dwindle in unbelief, the individual that was to perish should not be Nephi, it was Laban. The thing that was to be put down was the evil opposition, not the person who was seeking to keep the commandments. Buying coffee for that individual isn’t likely to improve the position of the other person or 1000’s of others. What is more likely the case is that we will bring ourselves down in the process.

In other words, the Iron Rod is the word of God. Use it to bring you and others unto Christ, unto the Tree of Life. Don’t put something slippery on that Iron Rod that will make it hard for others, as well as yourself, to hold to that special guide. Also, be aware when others will seek to do the same thing to you. Listen to the spirit, but understand that one way to help discern the spirit is to use the scriptures and the words of the prophet’s and apostles as a second or third witness of what the Lord is wanting you to do. This may take some time, it takes study. Use your parents, your leaders, or your bishop should you need additional counsel with such things.

Does God Authorize His Prophets to Make Mistakes?

by

Crucible_of_Doubt

[The Crucible of Doubt can be purchased from the FairMormon Bookstore.]

Within the past year, the Church published an article addressing the fact that for a long period in the Church’s history, black men were not allowed to be ordained to the priesthood.[i] The article acknowledged that leaders of the Church gave explanations for the ban that we now recognize as being incorrect. For some people, this article has raised as many questions as it answered. While many have experienced a sense of relief in seeing the Church disavow explanations for the ban that denigrated those of African descent, others have experienced a new sense of anxiety over the question of the extent to which we can rely on the teachings of the prophets and apostles. And to what extent can we be confident that the policies adopted by the Church are ordained of God?

Terryl and Fiona Givens directly addressed the question of prophetic infallibility in their book Crucible of Doubt: Reflections on the Quest for Faith. Terryl Givens has earlier, if only briefly, addressed this question, in his “Letter to a Doubter.”[ii] In their new book, the Givenses expand on this issue. The “Letter to a Doubter” essentially limited itself to a discussion of the fact that prophets are human, and humans make mistakes. However, chapter six of The Crucible of Doubt goes into more depth regarding the principles of delegation of authority and prophets as agents for God.

The concept of God delegating his authority to men on Earth and making them His agents, who act on His behalf, is not a new one. However, the Givenses discuss the concept in a way that may help illuminate the mechanism by which prophets act on God’s behalf and why doing so does not ensure that mistakes will not be made by God’s agents.

The title of chapter six is “On Delegation and Discipleship: The Ring of Pharaoh.” This title is a reference to the story of Joseph of Egypt:

When Joseph of the many-colored coat had gained Pharaoh’s complete trust and confidence, “Pharaoh took off his ring from his hand, and put it upon Joseph’s hand.” With this gesture, Pharaoh transferred his own power and authority to the former Hebrew slave. “Without your consent,” the Pharaoh told him, “no one shall lift up hand or foot in all the land of Egypt.”[iii]

Of course, when authority is delegated, it does not mean that the agent will always do precisely what is intended by the one delegating authority. This is obvious in the context of human interactions. However, we sometimes may hope and expect that when God delegates authority to a prophet, that the human in this scenario will somehow rise to the level of perfection inhabited by the one who has delegated the authority; that if one is acting for God, one will act like God. However, the scriptures do not give us this assurance.

In fact, the scriptures provide plenty of examples of prophets making mistakes and acting in ways that could be considered ungodly. For example, Moses disobeyed God’s instruction to speak to the rock and instead hit it. He then attributed the miracle to himself and Aaron, saying, “Must we fetch you water out of this rock?” He was chastised by the Lord afterward. (Numbers 20.) Nathan told David that the Lord approved of his desire to build a temple, and that he should commence the project. The Lord later told Nathan that such was not His desire, and that he was to tell David that the temple would be built by another. (2 Samuel 7.) And Jonah felt some personal prejudices against Assyrians, to the point of expecting the Lord to give them fewer blessings than to Jews. (Jonah 4.)

So prophets can guide us and direct us, but they can also test our faith, not just in calling us to live on a higher plane, but also in demonstrating that they do not always reach a higher plane themselves. In light of this, the Givenses note:

And if delegation is a real principle—if God really does endow mortals with the authority to act in His place and with His authority, even while He knows they will not act with infallible judgment—then it becomes clearer why God is asking us to receive the words of the prophet “as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.”[iv]

Of course, most of us are familiar with the observation made by Joseph Smith that “a prophet [is] a prophet only when he [is] acting as such” (HC 5:265). We also often hear repeated the scripture, “whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.” (D&C 1:38.) When these two statements are considered at once, we may tend to think that if we can just determine whether or not a prophet is acting as a prophet, or as God’s “servant,” we will know whether or not we can consider his words to be the infallible words of God. It may seem that if the president of the Church makes a statement that we later learn to be untrue, or enacts a policy that seems to have been mistaken, we can find comfort in the notion that the man may not have been acting on behalf of God on those occasions. This becomes more difficult, however, when a statement is made, or a policy announced, in General Conference, or on Church letterhead along with the signatures or other members of the First Presidency.

But perhaps in thinking this, we have misunderstood the principle of delegation of authority. For example, while there are statements that have been understood to mean that prophets, or God’s servants, cannot err when acting as God’s servants, the scriptures themselves undercut this interpretation. For example, while D&C Section 1 says “whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same,” a few verses earlier, we read:

Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding. And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known; And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed; And inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent; And inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time.

(D&C 1:24-28; emphasis added).

Another commonly quoted statement in support of the concept of prophetic inerrancy is that of Wilford Woodruff, when, speaking of abandoning the practice of polygamy, he said:

The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty. [v]

However, in addition to the aforementioned reasons to doubt that this statement supports the view that prophets cannot make mistakes, Elders Packer and Uchtdorf have given us additional reasons to doubt this conclusion. Elder Uchtdorf said, “This is the Church of Jesus Christ. God will not allow His Church to drift from its appointed course or fail to fulfill its divine destiny.”[vi] Elder Packer added that “…even with the best of intentions, it [the governance of the Church by mortal priesthood holders] does not always work the way it should. Human nature may express itself on occasion, but not to the permanent injury of the work.”[vii] In other words, while leaders can make mistakes, God will not allow the leaders to utterly destroy the work of the latter-day Church or cause the members to lose their opportunity to receive exaltation.

So when God says that the prophet is His agent on Earth, perhaps He is not saying that, when acting as the prophet, the man will always do exactly what God wants any more than by giving Joseph his ring, Pharaoh was assuring the people of Egypt that Joseph would always do exactly what Pharaoh would have done in his place. Right or wrong, the people of Egypt were to consider Joseph’s actions to be the actions of Pharaoh and were to be bound by Joseph’s words and actions as if they were the words and actions of Pharaoh.

Of course, this principle is not limited to the delegation of authority to a prophet. The Givenses ask “If a bishop makes a decision without inspiration, are we bound to sustain the decision?” And what if an apostle makes a mistake in calling a stake president?

The story is told of a Church official who returned from installing a new stake presidency. “Dad, do you Brethren feel confident when you call a man as the stake president that he is the Lord’s man?” the official’s son asked upon his father’s return home. “No, not always,” he replied. “But once we call him, he becomes the Lord’s man.” The answer disconcerts initially. Is this not hubris, to expect God’s sanction for a decision made in error? Perhaps. It is also possible that the reply reveals the only understanding of delegation that is viable.[viii]

The Givenses continue by observing:

If God honored only those decisions made in perfect accord with His perfect wisdom, then His purposes would require leaders who were utterly incapable of misconstruing His intention, who never missed hearing the still small voice, who were unerringly and unfailingly a perfect conduit for heaven’s inspiration. And it would render the principle of delegation inoperative. The Pharaoh didn’t say to Joseph, your authority extends as far as you anticipate perfectly what I would do in every instance. He gave Joseph his ring…. And after calling Joseph Smith to his mission, the Lord didn’t say, I will stand by you as long as you never err in judgment. He said, “Thou wast called and chosen. . . . Devote all thy service in Zion; and . . . lo, I am with thee, even unto the end.”[ix]

In light of all this, what are we to believe, ask the Givenses, when confronted by “faith-wrenching practices (polygamy), missteps and errors (Adam-God), and teachings that the Church has abandoned but not fully explained (the priesthood ban).”[x] In response, they quote the Anglican churchman Austin Farrer, who said “Facts are not determined by authority. Authority can make law to be law; authority cannot make facts to be facts.”[xi] To this, they add the words of Henry Eyring, who once quoted his father as saying, “in this church you don’t have to believe anything that isn’t true.”[xii]

Of course, while we may harbor misgivings in our minds regarding some policy, teaching or practice, how are we to act when confronted with doubts about whether or not an agent of God is actually doing God’s will? In response to this issue, Farrer is again quoted: “If Peter and his colleagues make law in applying the Lord’s precepts, . . . their law is the law of Christ’s Church, the best (if you will) that God’s Spirit can make with human instruments there and then, and, as such, to be obeyed as the will of God Himself. But to call Peter infallible in this connection is to misplace an epithet.”[xiii]

To carry the metaphor of agency and delegation further, we can consider the legal realm. What recourse exists against a principle when the agent causes some harm? Under the doctrine of agency law, if a person is injured by an agent who is acting under the authority of the principle, the principle will be liable for the harm and is required to set things right. Of course, while all wrongs and injustices have not yet been set right in this imperfect world, Christ has already paid the price for such wrongs. In other words, the miracle of delegation of divine authority does not ensure that the agent will always act according to God’s will. Rather, it ensures that God will guarantee the actions of the agent, and if the actions are wrong, through Christ’s atonement, all will be made right in the end. Indeed, even those things that can cause fear, doubt and pain can be made to benefit us in the end:

One comfort is to be found in a God whose power is in His magnanimity as well as His wisdom. These two traits mean that His divine energies are spent not in precluding chaos but in reordering it, not in preventing suffering but in alchemizing it, not in disallowing error but in transmuting it into goodness.[xiv]

Even the agents of God, even when acting as God’s agents, can cause fear, pain and confusion in this world. Although this may frustrate us, it does not frustrate God’s plan. In closing, we are reminded that the words of God’s servants can provide comfort and direction, even when counseling us regarding the imperfect words and actions of God’s servants themselves:

“Imperfect people are all God has ever had to work with,” reminds Elder Jeffrey Holland. “That must be terribly frustrating to Him, but He deals with it. So should we.” Generosity with our own inept attempts to serve and minister to each other in a lay church, charity toward those in leadership who, as President Dieter Uchtdorf noted, have “said or done [things] that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine,” and faith in Christ’s Atonement that makes up the human deficit—these could be the balm of Gilead for which both wounded disciples and striving leaders seek.[xv]

[i] Race and the Priesthood.

[ii] Terryl L. Givens, “Letter to a Doubter,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 4 (2013): 131-146. An audio version was published on FairMormon Blog.

[iii] Terryl Givens & Fiona Givens, The Crucible of Doubt (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2014), 73, citing Genesis 41:42 & 44, NRSV.

[iv] Givens & Givens, 75, citing D&C 21:5 (emphasis added).

[v] Sixty-first Semiannual General Conference of the Church, Monday, 6 October 1890, Salt Lake City, Utah. Reported in Deseret Evening News (11 October 1890): 2; cited in LDS scriptures after Official Declaration 1.

[vi] Dieter F. Uchtdorf, “Come Join With Us,” general conference, October 2013.

[vii] Boyd K. Packer, “”I Say unto You, Be One,'” in BYU Devotional and Fireside Speeches, 1990–1991 (Provo, Utah: University Publications, 1991), 84, emphasis added.

[viii] Givens & Givens, 75-76, citing a personal conversation reported to authors by Robert L. Millet.

[ix] Ibid., 76, quoting D&C 24:1, 7, 8.

[x] Ibid., 74.

[xi] Ibid., 74, quoting Austin Farrer, “Infallibility and Historical Tradition,” in The Truth-Seeking Heart, ed. Ann Loades and Robert MacSwain (Norwich: Canterbury Press, 2006), 83.

[xii] Ibid., 74, quoting Henry J. Eyring, Mormon Scientist: The Life and Faith of Henry Eyring (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2007), 4.

[xiii] Ibid., 74-75, quoting Farrer, “Infallibility,” 83–84.

[xiv] Ibid., 78.

[xv] Ibid., 82, quoting Jeffrey R. Holland, “Lord, I Believe,” Ensign, May 2013, 94 and Dieter F. Uchtdorf, “Come, Join with Us,” Ensign, November 2013, 22.

Announcement: 2014 Temple on Mount Zion Conference

by

–––From the Interpreter website–––

The Interpreter Foundation would like to announce a forthcoming conference, the 2014 Temple on Mount Zion Conference to be held in 251 TNRB (N. Eldon Tanner Building) on the campus of Brigham Young University, in Provo, Utah, on 25 October, 2014. This conference is sponsored by the BYU College of Humanities and Department of Asian and Near Eastern Languages as well as The Interpreter Foundation.

The conference focuses on LDS conceptions of ancient and modern Temple theology as reflected in the Bible and LDS scripture. There will be thirteen presenters. You can see a list of presenters and schedule on the Program & Schedule page.

Program & Schedule

2014 Temple on Mount Zion Conference
Saturday, 25 October 2014, 8:45 am–5:45 pm
251 TNRB (N. Eldon Tanner Building)
Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah

8:45 am           Opening Prayer, Greeting—Donald W. Parry, presiding

9:00 am           Jeffrey Bradshaw: “What Did Joseph Smith Know about the LDS Endowment by 1836?”

9:30 am           Dan Belnap: “‘Let the Beauty of the Lord our God be Upon Us’: The Role of Visual Aesthetics in Ancient Israel’s Temple Worship”

10:00 am         Carli Anderson: “Enthroning the Daughter of Zion: The Coronation Motif of Isaiah 60-62”

10:30 am         Break

 

10:45 am         Carli Anderson, presiding

Stephen D. Ricks: “Prayer with Uplifted Hands”

11:15 am         David Calabro: “Joseph Smith and the Architecture of Genesis”

11:45 am         Stephen Smoot: “The Book of the Dead as a Temple Text and the Implications for the Book of Abraham”

12:15 pm         David J. Larsen: “Psalm 24 and the Two Yahwehs at the Gate of the Temple”

12:45 pm         Lunch break

 

1:55 pm           Greeting—David J. Larsen, presiding

2:00 pm           Ann Madsen: “Temples in the Margins: The Temple in Isaiah”

2:30 pm           Donald W. Parry: “Temple Themes in Cities of Refuge Texts”

3:00 pm           Matthew L. Bowen: “‘I Have Done According to My Will’: Reading Jacob 5 as a Temple Text”

3:30 pm           Break

 

3:45 pm           Stephen D. Ricks, presiding

John W. Welch: “Leviticus as an Archetypal Temple Template”

4:15 pm           John S. Thompson: “How John’s Gospel Portrays Jesus as the Way of the Temple”

4:45 pm           Shon D. Hopkin: “The Day of Atonement, the Mosaic Temple, and the Christian Sacrament of Communion: Links and Symbols”

5:15 pm           Daniel C. Peterson: “The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Qur’an”

5:45 pm           Concluding Remarks, Closing Prayer

This conference is sponsored by the BYU College of Humanities, the Department of Asian and Near Eastern Languages, and the Interpreter Foundation

Articles of Faith 15: Loren Spendlove – Understanding Nephi with the Help of Noah Webster

by

Podcast: Download (47.7MB)

Subscribe: RSS

loren-spendloveLoren Spendlove (MBA, California State University, Fullerton and PhD, University of Wyoming) has worked in many fields over the last thirty years, including academics and corporate financial management. Currently, he and his wife design and manufacture consumer goods. A student of languages, his research interests center on linguistics and etymology.

Questions addressed in this episode:

Why use the 1828 dictionary? Why not an earlier or later edition?

What is the value of looking at a book like the Book of Mormon with any appeal to a dictionary?

There are some devotional interpretations that your article offers, and there are some more apologetic interpretations. What are some examples of both?

When it comes to answering the critics using these alternative definitions, there is a clear, you are reading this with the wrong language understanding. With the more devotional aspects, are you saying the same thing only perhaps to members of the Church?

In the episode Loren Spendlove references a 20+ page guide of his findings from 1 Nephi that include the changes in word use from 1828 till today’s language use.

Click here for that spreadsheet —>> Nephi and Noah Webster

Click here to read Loren Spendlove’s article in the Interpreter.

Fair Issues 69: Where is the land Bountiful?

by

Podcast: Download (7.0MB)

Subscribe: RSS

MAIn this podcast brother Ash discusses possible locations for the land Bountiful.

Current research supports the view presented in the Book of Mormon. In the southern Arabia country of Oman near the border of Yemen is a costal province known a Dhofar which has a fertile region – only a few miles wide – on the coast of the Arabian Sea.  This mountainous area covers more than 38,000 miles square miles and historically was the chief source of frankincense in the world.

The full text of this article can be found at Deseret News online.

Brother Ash is author of the book Shaken Faith Syndrome: Strengthening One’s Testimony in the Face of Criticism and Doubt, as well as the book, of Faith and Reason: 80 Evidences Supporting the Prophet Joseph Smith. Both books are available for purchase online through the FairMormon Bookstore. Tell your friends about the Mormon Fair-Cast. Share a link on your Facebook page and help increase the popularity of the Mormon Fair-Cast by subscribing to this podcast in iTunes, and by rating it and writing a review.

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

 

Faith and Reason 22: Laban and his “Fifty”

by

Podcast: Download (4.4MB)

Subscribe: RSS

 

From the book: Of Faith and Reason: 80 Evidences Supporting the Prophet Joseph Smith

by Michael R. Ash

When Nephi and his brothers asked Laban for the brass plates in trade for their silver and gold, Laban tried to kill them and he took away their possessions. After a narrow escape, Laman and Lemuel complained about the impossibility of their task because of Laban and his “fifty”:

“And after the angel had departed, Laman and Lemuel again began to murmur, saying: How is it possible that the Lord will deliver Laban into our hands? Behold, he is a mighty man, and he can command fifty, yea, even he can slay fifty; then why not us?” (1 Nephi 3:31)

To modern readers this sounds like a small army indeed, but to those of the ancient Near East, the size of Laban’s garrison fits neatly into Old World customs. According to Dr. Hugh Nibley, a permanent garrison in a big city of Lehi’s day consisted of thirty to eighty men. In a recently discovered letter of Nebuchadnezzar (a contemporary of Lehi,) the king speaks of a garrison of “fifty”. In Babylonia, a platoon in the army consisted of fifty men. This permanent unit was always called a “fifty” just as Nephi spoke of “Laban with his fifty”.

Michael R. Ash is the author of: Of Faith and Reason: 80 Evidences Supporting The Prophet Joseph Smith. He is the owner and operator of MormonFortress.com and is on the management team for FairMormon. He has been published in Sunstone, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, the Maxwell Institute’s FARMS Review, and is the author of Shaken Faith Syndrome: Strengthening One’s Testimony in the Face of Criticism and Doubt.  He and his wife live in Ogden, Utah, and have three daughters.

Julianne Dehlin Hatton  is a broadcast journalist living in Louisville, Kentucky. She has worked as a News Director at an NPR affiliate, Radio and Television Host, and Airborne Traffic Reporter. She graduated with an MSSc from the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse University in 2008. Julianne and her husband Thomas are the parents of four children.

Music for Faith and Reason is provided by Arthur Hatton.

Mormon Fair-cast 289: #3, Is the Bible an authentic source of truth?

by

Podcast: Download (27.0MB)

Subscribe: RSS

i-believe-podcast-karen-239x300This third interview in a series of nine with guest D.M. Johnson discusses the manuscript evidence for the Bible. Karen and Dave go more in-depth on the wealth of manuscript evidence that exists for the Bible, particularly the New Testament.

They discuss the following topics:

  • Criteria the ancients used for placing a book or epistle in the Bible

  • Number and origin of ancient manuscripts

  • Variants between the manuscripts and how these affect our understanding of the Bible

Most importantly, they witness that the Bible is indeed God’s word, and invite all listeners to read and pray about its truthfulness.

You can find the complete transcript here

This series of podcasts were produced by the “I Believe” podcast group. They are used by permission of Karen Trifiletti the author of this work.

As always the view and opinions expressed in this podcast may not represent those of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint or that of FairMormon

RiseUp Podcast: When Bad Things Happen

by

Podcast: Download (24.4MB)

Subscribe: RSS

In this episode of RiseUp, Blake talks about a question that people often ask, Why do bad things happen? He talks about agency, the plan of salvation, and what it means to be faithful through trials.

RiseUp is a weekly podcast program for LDS (mormon) young adults (youth) both seminary and institute age ranges. These episodes focus on providing answers and insights on difficult topics or critical questions relating to LDS Doctrine or culture.

Letters to a Former Missionary Companion – Letter 6

by

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

Dear Doug,

I’m glad to hear that you are reading the Book of Mormon again. I hope you are reading it with a spirit of seeking the truth, not just to see if you can find “problems.” People tend to find what they are searching for.

Let’s begin this discussion with your concerns about the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated.

Like virtually every Mormon, I was taught that Joseph Smith translated the golden plates by way of the Urim and Thummim—a holy relic that looked like spectacles and were somehow attached to a breastplate. The Urim and Thummim, I was told, were among the items Moroni buried in the box containing the golden plates.

The truth is, however, that the Book of Mormon doesn’t refer to the translating tool as the “Urim and Thummim.” The Book of Mormon calls them the “Interpreters” (Mosiah 8:13). Some early Latter-day Saints began referring to the Interpreters as the “Urim and Thummim”—a reference to a device in the Old Testament that was associated with the High Priest’s breastplate and used for divination or for receiving answers from God (see Exodus 28:30). The early Saints didn’t think that the Nephite Interpreters were the Urim and Thummim mentioned in the Bible but were another Urim and Thummim given for translating the plates.

When I was a fairly young man I read several LDS publications about Joseph Smith’s history—all books that could be found at Deseret Book or in the Institute Library. I quickly learned that Joseph sometimes used a seer stone to translate the Book of Mormon. The fact was in no way hidden from members who were interested in reading Church history. During my own faith crisis, however, there were two things that surprised and bothered about the translation process. First was the fact that Joseph put the stone in a hat, and peered into the hat while translating. The second troubling issue (for me) was that Joseph obviously believed in “magical” divining by way of seer stones. I had never heard of either of these two points before, and I must admit that I was initially shaken by the disclosure.

Unfortunately, my image of the translation process was like that of the typical member—it was based on what I had seen in Church magazines and comments from Sunday school teachers rather than from a critical examination of the historical evidence. Most artists, however, are not historians and occasionally produce artwork that is based on misassumptions. Some wonderful LDS artwork, for example, depicts Caucasian-looking Nephites with romance-novel cover-model physiques wielding broadswords and Viking-like helmets—none of which fits the actual images that could be created for how early American warriors would have looked or the weapons they would have utilized.

The average painting of the Savior typically falls victim to similar problems with features generally based on the cultural or theological perspectives of the artist rather than on historical accuracy. Da Vinci’s “Last Supper,” for example, depicts European-looking men sitting at a regular table instead of Middle Eastern men reclining at the low tables of Jesus’ day. An Italian Renaissance portrait of Mary and the baby Jesus has a Renaissance castle and town in the background, and the 1569 “Census of Bethlehem” by a Belgian artist depicts snow and ice-skaters in what appears to be a Renaissance Belgium village.

The truth is that the Interpreters didn’t come with instructions and Joseph was apparently left on his own as to how to use them. This is when his cultural background came in handy. In Joseph Smith’s day many of the frontiersmen in his vicinity believed that divining rods and seer stones could be used to find water, lost objects, and treasures. The ability to divine was generally considered to be a God-given gift and was practiced by devoutly religious men and women.

Long prior to acquiring the plates the young Joseph Smith was a believer in divination. In fact, he and his friends and family believed that he had the God-given gift to find lost objects by way of a seer stone. Seer stones were thought to be special stones in which one could see the location of the object for which one was divining. The seer stones were related to crystal balls or the practice of looking into pools of water or mirrors to divine information (such as the Queen’s magic mirror in the Snow White tale).

I already knew—but hadn’t made the connection until I began learning about Joseph’s translation process—that some people in Joseph’s day used divining stones. I recalled reading Joseph’s history by his mother Lucy Mack Smith (a book I read when I was about 16). In that book Lucy told about a company of men who were trying to get the plates from Joseph and brought a woman who could find things by looking into a green rock. She apparently came within inches of finding the plates!

While this seems strange in modern times, in Joseph’s day many intelligent, educated, and religious people believed that such real powers existed in the forces of nature. Well into the nineteenth-century, for instance, a number of people believed in alchemy—the belief that baser metals could be turned into gold. Some of New England’s practicing alchemists were graduates from Yale and Harvard and one alchemist was the Chief Justice of Massachusetts.

In order to see inside of the stone, it was sometimes placed between one’s eye and the flicker of a candle, or into something dark—such as an upside down hat—to shield out all light. It was believed that in such an environment a seer (someone who “sees”) could stare into the stone for the information one was seeking.

When Joseph first acquired the Nephite Interpreters he also tried placing them into a hat to shield the light. Although he apparently managed to translate the 116 lost pages by this method he complained that he had a hard time fitting the spectacles into the hat and that the two lenses were set too far apart—and were apparently made for someone with a broader face. It gave him eyestrain when he stared into the lenses.

After Joseph lost the first 116 pages, the Interpreters and his gift to translate were temporarily taken away. Eventually, after repenting, Joseph’s gift was returned but instead of using the Nephite Interpreters Joseph was allowed to use his seer stone to finish the translating process. In Joseph’s “language” the seer stone had the same properties as the Interpreters and was therefore also a Urim and Thummin. So when many early records speak of Joseph translating by way of the Urim and Thummim they are generally referring to the seer stone and not the Interpreters. Unfortunately, through time, members have forgotten about the seer stone (as divination become less accepted by society) and eventually most members assumed that the only Urim and Thummim Joseph used was the Interpreters.

The seer stone made the translating process much easier and we read that Joseph would sit for hours, his face in the hat—to obscure the light—while he saw the English translation of the Book of Mormon text that he dictated to his scribes.

The more I thought about it, the less the translation process bothered me. I already believed that Joseph Smith translated by way of a sacred “rock”—the Urim and Thummim—why would it seem so odd that God gave Joseph the power to translated with a “rock” from his own culture—the “seer stone”? And in hindsight, I already knew that other people in Joseph’s vicinity used seer stones in “magical” ways. If Joseph and the people of his day believed that you could see other-worldly things in special rocks, why couldn’t God use that cultural belief as a focal point for Joseph to receive revelation regarding the content of the Book of Mormon? How Joseph translated the plates was really unimportant compared to what he gave us in that translation.

Your friend,

Shane

Letters to a Former Missionary Companion – Letter 5

Letters to a Former Missionary Companion – Letter 4

Letters to a Former Missionary Companion – Letter 3

Letters to a Former Missionary Companion – Letter 2

Letters to a Former Missionary Companion

Articles of Faith Podcast 14: Ralph C. Hancock – An Invitation to Help Advance the Pursuit of Truth as it Concerns our Way of Life

by

Podcast: Download (53.7MB)

Subscribe: RSS

Ralph-Hancock2Ralph C. Hancock earned his Bachelors from Brigham Young University and his M.A. and Ph.D. from Harvard University, all in political science. Prior to joining the faculty at Brigham Young University, where he is now a professor of political science, he taught at Hillsdale College in Michigan (1982-1986) and the University of Idaho (1986-1987). Ralph is (at the time of this interview) the President of the John Adams Center for the Study of Faith, Philosophy an Public Affairs.

Ralph Hancock e is also one of the founders of the LDS Web journal SquareTwo (http://squaretwo.org/) and a member of its editorial board. His current focus is on meaning and the limits of philosophy in relation to politics, ethics, and religion, and has started a series of articles with Meridian Magazine. He is here today to talk about a soon-to-be-released introductory article to that series with Meridian entitled An Invitation to Help Advance the Pursuit of Truth as it Concerns our Way of Life.

Questions we address in this interview:

You are not a new voice in the dialogue and effort to defend the LDS Faith online. This effort with Meridian Magazine starts about how many years deep into your online efforts?

So when Elder Bednar spoke at BYU Education Week about flooding the earth with messages online, messages of righteousness and truth, what was your response?

I don’t mean to put you in a box, but in my reading of some of your past history of articles, you seem to want to be correcting perceptions, or narratives that are out there. You represent what many would place as a conservative voice. I use that term because of your political science training would have you experience many titles or compartments for certain perspectives. How do you classify yourself, or at least your online voice?

Speaking of terms, or tags, or social constructs, your article addresses several other token terms that are often used in the discourse, even critically of the Church? What are some of the those terms that you single out in the article, and why?

Typical LDS apologetics doesn’t always venture into matters of political discourse because the Church itself declares political neutrality. Perhaps we could blame it on your day job, but your new article series seems to approach the idea of apologetics but more from a cultural and political defense as opposed to a debate based on doctrinal interpretations or historical research. I believe you even refer to this as being called Moral Apologetics or perhaps “anti-ideological apologetics.” Perhaps you could explain further what you mean behind this categorization?

I want to share a quote from the article, to give a flavor of what people can expect, but also to ask a follow up question, but in speaking of the opposition voice that some encounter in online discourse surrounding Mormonism, its culture and teachings, you state, “I should add here that these forces will not just go away, and they will not leave us alone. It is comforting to think that we can simply agree to disagree with elements of our society that wish, for example, to redefine the “family” out of existence. But we will not be able to avoid the effects of the dominance of the new ideology. We see them already in the way this ideology tends to undermine the moral categories even of active Church members whose roots are not deep and strong enough. But even those whose beliefs are not undermined from within will find their religious practice constrained more and more by the dominant ideology. There is no way that religious freedom can be safe in a society in which traditional believers are regarded as “bigots.”

Another quote that I find to be rather accute to many of the church who wonder how they may more fully engage in what Elder Bednar admonished regarding entering the fray as some may see it by opening their mouths online. Her is the quote, “Others may wish to support Church teachings concerning morality and the family but would rather do so privately, even silently, leaving such controversial matters to Church authorities, conceding perhaps that reason has little to say in this area. This is a question that would require much further discussion. For now I will only say that I think it is a big mistake to concede the title of rationality to the proponents of radical equality and freedom, and thus implicitly abandon core moral principles and teachings concerning the family to the realm of some blind obedience.”We have time, let’s give this question further discussion. First off, do you find this mentality of avoidance amongst active members a common position?

Your article was an invitation, perhaps even an extension of Elder Bednar’s invitation, but your invitation seems a bit more focused. How is your article, as the title implies, an invitation and to whom?

Ralph Hancock is a BYU Professor in Political Science and is bravely engaging in a new project with Meridian Magazine into moral apologetics.