FAIR

Blog

Egyptology and the Book of Abraham: An Interview with Egyptologist Kerry Muhlestein

by

photo1
Kerry Muhlestein, associate professor of ancient scripture at Brigham Young University.

Mormon fascination with the ancient world stems largely from an exotic corpus of writings found in the canon of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. One book in the Church’s canon, the Book of Abraham, which Joseph Smith claimed to be an inspired translation of some ancient Egyptian papyri, has captured Mormon imagination with a vibrant narrative involving the eponymous biblical patriarch, human sacrifice, far-off lands, divine encounters and a grand cosmology.

One BYU professor, Kerry Muhlestein, has devoted a good portion of his academic career (over a decade) investigating the saga of the Book of Abraham. Muhlestein, who holds a PhD in Egyptology from UCLA, is an associate professor of ancient scripture at BYU. According to his faculty bio on the BYU Religious Education website, Muhlestein “is the director of the BYU Egypt Excavation Project,” which has led successful archaeological digs in Egypt, and has academic expertise in fields including “Ancient Egypt, Hebrew Bible, [and the] Pearl of Great Price.” [Read more…] about Egyptology and the Book of Abraham: An Interview with Egyptologist Kerry Muhlestein

The Prophet and the Pistol: A Perspective on the Martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum Smith

by

The following article was published in The Prophet and the Pistol: A Perspective on the Martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum Smith, Meridian Magazine, November 7, 2013 and is reprinted with permission.

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. John 15:13

Finding Joseph’s Gun

In the Church History Museum near Temple Square, located inside a glass case, resides a pair of 19th century pistols and a walking stick. The placard reads, in part, as follows,

Joseph’s Pepperbox Pistol and Hyrum’s Single Shot Pistol. These guns were used by both men for their defense during the attack at Carthage

These were the guns that were smuggled into the Carthage Jail while Joseph Smith, Hyrum and their friends awaited their fate. On the morning of June 27, 1844, Cyrus Wheelock visited the jail.

The morning being a little rainy, favoured his wearing an overcoat, in the side pocket of which he was enabled to carry a six-shooter, and he passed the guard unmolested. During his visit in the prison he slipped the revolver into Joseph’s pocket. Joseph examined it, and asked Wheelock if he had not better retain it for his own protection.

This was a providential circumstance, as most other persons had been very rigidly searched. Joseph then handed the single barrel pistol, which had been given him by John S. Fullmer, to his brother Hyrum, and said, “You may have use for this.” Brother Hyrum observed, “I hate to use such things, or to see them used.” “So do I,” said Joseph, “but we may have to, to defend ourselves;” upon this Hyrum took the pistol. [i]

Although it was referred to as a “six shooter,” the pepper-box pistol was not a revolver in the normal sense. It incorporated six individual barrels, it was difficult to aim and tended to be unreliable. The June 2013 Ensign features a painting Greater Love Hath No Man, by Casey Childs. [ii] The artwork features all three items in the display case. Joseph, Hyrum and Willard Richards are attempting to hold the door shut as the mob attempts to enter the room. John Taylor is holding his walking stick. In Hyrum’s left pocket is the single shot pistol brought into the jail by Fullmer, and in Joseph’s left pocket, clearly visible, is the pepper-box pistol given to him by Wheelock. [iii]

Firing Joseph’s Gun

The attack commenced with Hyrum being shot in the face through the door. Hyrum’s pistol was never fired. Willard Richards wrote,

As he struck the floor he exclaimed emphatically; “I’m a dead man.” Joseph looked towards him and responded, “O dear! Brother Hyrum!” and opening the door two or three inches with his left hand, discharged one barrel of a six shooter (pistol) at random in the entry from whence a ball grazed Hyrum’s breast, and entering his throat passed into his head, while other muskets were aimed at him, and some balls hit him. [iv]

Joseph, grief stricken upon seeing the death of his brother, pulled the pepperbox from his pocket, reached around the door frame and blindly attempted to discharge all six rounds from his pistol into the group of men that was attempting to push their way into the room. Only three of the rounds actually fired, but the intruders at the door were packed so closely together that Joseph could not possibly miss. All three of the rounds fired by Joseph apparently found targets, and John Taylor later mistakenly believed that two of the men struck had actually died from their wounds. Taylor wrote that Joseph, “with a firm, quick step, and a determined expression of countenance, approached the door, and pulling the six-shooter left by Brother Wheelock from his pocket, opened the door slightly, and snapped the pistol six successive times; only three of the barrels, however, were discharged. I afterwards understood that two or three were wounded by these discharges, two of whom, I am informed, died.” [v]

The information given to John Taylor was in error, however. Dallin Oaks and Marvin Hill talk of the three men wounded by Joseph.

There were separate indictments for the two murders. Each charged the same nine defendants: John Wills, William Voras….and two men named Gallaher and Allen, whose first names were not given….Wills, Voras, and Gallaher were probably named in the indictment because their wounds, which testimony showed were received at the jail, were irrefutable evidence that they had participated in the mob. They undoubtedly recognized their vulnerability and fled the county. A contemporary witness reported these three as saying that they were the first men at the jail, that one of them shot through the door killing Hyrum, that Joseph wounded all three with his pistol, and that Gallaher shot Joseph as he ran to the window. [vi]

The only men known to have been wounded in the attack would be those on the receiving end of Joseph’s pistol. Dead men, of course, are not indicted, nor do they flee the county.

Talking of Joseph’s Gun

As a missionary in 1979, I often used a filmstrip projector. One of the filmstrips that we often showed to investigators was called “The Martyrdom.” The audio tape accompanying the filmstrip stated that Cyrus Wheelock smuggled a pistol into Carthage Jail and gave it to Joseph. The final frame of the filmstrip ended with Joseph’s testimony, now found in Doctrine and Covenants 76:22-23.

And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all, which we give of him: That he lives! For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father.

Joseph’s use of a gun at the time of the martyrdom was simply part of the story. There was no particular emphasis made of it, nor was there any attempt to diminish the fact that Joseph fired at his attackers. Yet I have spoken with returned missionaries today who are completely unaware that Joseph even had a gun at Carthage Jail. Have references to Joseph’s gun disappeared from Church materials?

A search of lds.org produces a detailed description in the 2003 Church History in the Fulness of Times manual. The manual’s explanation is in accordance with my memory of the filmstrip that I viewed so many years ago,

At the jail, the four brethren sweltered in the sultry afternoon heat. Joseph gave Hyrum a single-shot pistol and prepared to defend himself with the six-shooter smuggled in that morning by Cyrus Wheelock. . . . A bullet fired through the panel of the door struck Hyrum in the left side of his face, and he fell, saying, “I am a dead man!” Joseph, leaning over Hyrum exclaimed, “Oh dear, brother Hyrum!” John Taylor said the look of sorrow he saw on Joseph’s face was forever imprinted on his mind. Joseph then stepped to the door, reached around the door casing, and discharged his six-shooter into the crowded hall. Only three of the six chambers fired, wounding three assailants. [vii]

A picture of the two pistols appears in the manual with the following description:

The Prophet used this six-shooter, called a “pepper-box,” to defend himself and his fellow prisoners. John S. Fullmer took this single-barrel pistol into the jail, but it was never used by the prisoners. [viii]

But that is not all. The Gospel Doctrine Teacher’s Manual for 2005: “Doctrine and Covenants and Church History” lesson 32, page 184 has the following account of the martyrdom by Elder Willard Richards:

As he struck the floor he exclaimed emphatically, ‘I am a dead man.’ Joseph looked towards him and responded, ‘Oh, dear brother Hyrum!’ and opening the door two or three inches with his left hand, discharged one barrel of a six shooter (pistol) at random in the entry. . .Joseph continued snapping his revolver round the casing of the door into the space as before, while Mr. Taylor with a walking stick stood by his side and knocked down the bayonets and muskets which were constantly discharging through the doorway….

When the revolver failed, we had no more firearms, and expected an immediate rush of the mob, and the doorway full of muskets, half way in the room, and no hope but instant death from within.

Thomas S. Monson in the First Presidency Message of the June 1994 Ensign, notes that “the Prophet Joseph, with his pistol in hand, was attempting to defend his life and that of his brethren.” [ix]

There does not seem to be any lack of reference to the pistol or the manner in which it was used in current Church materials. Additional accounts are found in the Times and Seasons, the History of the Church, and the video The Joseph Smith Papers, The Martyrdom Of Joseph And Hyrum Smith – Episode 49.[x]

Why did the Saints feel the need to defend themselves?

Why would Joseph and those with him feel that they needed to have weapons to defend themselves? In order to understand this, it is necessary to understand why Joseph ended up in jail in the first place.

The event that landed Joseph in jail was the order of the Nauvoo City council to destroy the printing press of the Nauvoo Expositor. The editors of the Expositor, among whom was former First Presidency member William Law, made the intentions of the paper very clear:

We are earnestly seeking to explode the vicious principles of Joseph Smith, and those who practice the same abominations and whoredoms; which we verily know are not accordant and consonant with the principles of Jesus Christ and the Apostles.” [xi]

The Expositor called for the “unconditional repeal of the Nauvoo City charter,” and encouraged members of the Church to reject Joseph Smith as its leader, noting that:

We hereby notify all those holding licenses to preach the gospel, who know they are guilty of teaching the doctrine of other Gods above the God of this creation; the plurality of wives; the unconditional sealing up against all crimes, save that of shedding innocent blood; the spoiling of the gentiles, and all other doctrines, (so called) which are contrary to the laws of God , or to the laws of our country, to cease preaching.” [xii]

The publication of the Expositor incited “anger and fear in Nauvoo: anger for its vilification of the Prophet and its accusations against other Church leaders; fear from its call for a repeal of the Nauvoo charter so that local government would be taken out of the hands of the Saints.” [xiii]

Thus, the paper was declared a “nuisance” by the Nauvoo City council, and the press was subsequently destroyed. This ultimately resulted in Joseph being brought up on charges of treason, and his subsequent trip to Carthage to await trial.

“Let it be made with powder and ball!!!”

Was the mob that stormed the jail that day doing so because they were each outraged over an apparent attack on freedom of the press? Not really. The destruction of the Expositor was simply a trigger, and it was used as leverage to great effect. The Expositor was destroyed on June 10, 1844. The following day, Thomas B. Sharp, editor of the Warsaw Signal, printed an editorial titled simply “The Time has Come!”

War and extermination is inevitable! Citizens ARISE, ONE and ALL!!!—Can you stand by, and suffer such INFERNAL DEVILS! to ROB men of their property and RIGHTS, without avenging them. We have no time for comment, every man will make his own. LET IT BE MADE WITH POWDER AND BALL!!! [xiv]

In Sharp’s mind, the “time had come” to deal with Joseph Smith and the Mormons. Things did not reach this level simply because of the Expositor. On June 5, the week before the destruction of the Expositor, Sharp had published a diatribe against Joseph,

Joe, you are [the] very thing you accuse Messrs. Van Buren, Clay and Calhoon of being; and more, we do not believe that even your blackguard pen, or rather that of your man Friday’s, (for no one would accuse you of being able to put two sentences in the English Language together correctly,) can picture a wretch so depraved, and loathsome as yourself. Yos Joe! we have that confidence in your saintship, that we do not believe that the concentrated extract of all the abominations of the Infernal Regions, can add one stain to the blackness of your character. Look in a mirror Joe and you will see the reflection of the most detestable wretch that the earth contains. [xv]

The tinder had already been laid, and the destruction of the Expositor was the match that ignited it. It is no surprise that Joseph and those who supported him would feel the need to provide some defense against a possible armed attack.

Does Joseph qualify as a martyr?

There is no doubt that Joseph attempted to defend himself and his friends using a firearm, and that this is attested to abundantly within Church publications. Does this mean that he does not qualify as a “martyr”? Joseph said, “I am going like a lamb to the slaughter; but I am calm as a summer’s morning; I have a conscience void of offense towards God, and towards all men. I shall die innocent, and it shall yet be said of me—he was murdered in cold blood.” [xvi] Did Joseph lose martyr status when he attempted to fight back?

Critics of the Church chose to portray the martyrdom as a “gun battle” between Joseph and those who were trying to enter the room. The term “gun battle” evokes a certain mental image, often fueled by depictions in movies, of an intense back-and-forth exchange of shots. It is not usually represented by a few individuals trapped in a room, desperately trying to keep themselves from being murdered. Joseph’s group had two pistols and a walking stick against a large, well-armed mob. Joseph firing off three shots at his attackers after witnessing the murder of his brother hardly constitutes a “gun battle,” and Joseph no doubt knew that it would make little difference. What effect did the presence of Joseph’s gun have on the attackers? It was no doubt a temporary deterrent, and it may have contributed to sparing the lives of John Taylor and Willard Richards, since the mob had no way of knowing if there were other weapons in the room as well. What is more likely to have saved their lives, however, is Joseph choosing to go to the window. The mob focused on the true object of their murderous quest, and Taylor and Richard’s lives were spared.

The definition of “martyr,” according to Noah Webster’s 1828 dictionary is: “One who, by his death, bears witness to the truth of the gospel. Stephen was the first Christian martyr. To be a martyr signifies only to witness the truth of Christ.” [xvii]

John Taylor, who was seriously wounded in the attack and a firsthand witness to these events, certainly considered Joseph and Hyrum martyrs:

To seal the testimony of this book and the Book of Mormon, we announce the martyrdom of Joseph Smith the Prophet, and Hyrum Smith the Patriarch. They were shot in Carthage jail, on the 27th of June, 1844, about five o’clock p.m., by an armed mob—painted black—of from 150 to 200 persons. Hyrum was shot first and fell calmly, exclaiming: I am a dead man! Joseph leaped from the window, and was shot dead in the attempt, exclaiming: O Lord my God! They were both shot after they were dead, in a brutal manner, and both received four balls. [xviii]

Elder D. Todd Christofferson offers this perspective,

Martyrdom endows a prophet’s testimony with a special validity. Indeed the Greek root “martureo” from which the English word “martyr” is derived means “witness.” The prophet Abinadi is described as “having sealed the truth of his words by his death.” Jesus’ own death was a testament of His divinity and mission. He is declared in Hebrews to be “the mediator of the new testament” validated by His death, “For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead.” [xix]

The fact that Joseph defended himself and his friends from those who were trying to kill them does not in any way diminish the importance of the sacrifice that Joseph and Hyrum ultimately made. Joseph had faced death before. Joseph and Hyrum had earlier had the opportunity to escape to Iowa, but instead chose to go to Carthage, knowing the probable outcome. This was not an act of cowardice. Joseph was no doubt aware that two pistols that they possessed in the jail would ultimately fail to hold back an armed mob.

Elder Christofferson states that Joseph’s death validated his testament:

Like most of the Lord’s anointed in ancient time, [Joseph Smith] sealed his mission and his works with his own blood.” In a hail of bullets on the afternoon of June 27, 1844, in Carthage, Illinois, Joseph and his brother, Hyrum, were cut down for the religion and testimony they professed. As the latter-day apostles then announced, “The testators are now dead, and their testament is in force.[xx]

Joseph knew that he might someday be required to die in order to seal his testament, and yet he knew also that Jesus Christ had made the ultimate sacrifice. The words of Doctrine and Covenants 122:7-9, which Joseph received during the many grueling months he spent in Liberty Jail, seem particularly appropriate. Joseph wanted to know if his ordeal would ever end, and the Lord gave him glimpse of the future, while reminding him of who made the true sacrifice:

And if thou shouldst be cast into the pit, or into the hands of murderers, and the sentence of death passed upon thee; if thou be cast into the deep; if the billowing surge conspire against thee; if fierce winds become thine enemy; if the heavens gather blackness, and all the elements combine to hedge up the way; and above all, if the very jaws of hell shall gape open the mouth wide after thee, know thou, my son, that all these things shall give thee experience, and shall be for thy good.

The Son of Man hath descended below them all. Art thou greater than he?

Therefore, hold on thy way, and the priesthood shall remain with thee; for their bounds are set, they cannot pass. Thy days are known, and thy years shall not be numbered less; therefore, fear not what man can do, for God shall be with you forever and ever. [xxi]

For further information regarding Joseph’s gun and the martyrdom, including an extensive list of Church publications which mention the weapon, please see the FairMormon Answers articles
Was Joseph Smith not a martyr because he fired a gun at his attackers? and Has the Church tried to hide the fact that Joseph fired a pepperbox pistol at the mob which murdered him?
_________________________________
[i] The Latter-Day Saints Millennial Star, Vol. 24, No. 29, (July 19, 1862) 459.

[ii] Casey Childs, Greater Love Hath No Man, Oil on Linen, 60×48″. The artist has documented the meticulous process by which he created a historically accurate representation of the moment just before Hyrum was shot. This included researching the pistols that Joseph and Hyrum were carrying in their pockets.

[iii] LaRene Porter Gaunt, “Two Witnesses, Three Days And the Aftermath of the Martyrdom,” Ensign, June 2013, 40.

[iv] Willard Richards, “Two Minutes in Jail,” Times and Seasons, Vol.5, No.14, (1. Aug. 1844) 598.

[v] John Taylor, quote in Hubert Hugh Bancroft, History of Utah 1540-1887, 179.

[vi] Oaks, Dallin H., and Marvin S. Hill. Carthage Conspiracy: The Trial of the Accused Assassins of Joseph Smith. Urbana: University of Illinois, 1975, 51-52.

[vii] Church History in the Fulness of Times, 281-2.

[viii] Church History in the Fulness of Times, 281.

[ix] Thomas S. Monson, “The Prophet Joseph Smith: Teacher by Example,” Ensign, June 1994.

[x] Times and Seasons, 5/14 (1 August 1844): 597-98; Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 volumes, edited by Brigham H. Roberts, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1957), 7:102–103; The Joseph Smith Papers, The Martyrdom Of Joseph And Hyrum Smith – Episode 49

[xi] Nauvoo Expositor.

[xii] Nauvoo Expositor.

[xiii] “Highlights in the Prophet’s Life,” Ensign, June 1994.

[xiv] Thomas B. Sharp, “The Time has Come!”, The Warsaw Signal, June 11, 1844.

[xv] Thomas B. Sharp, “Joe Smith and Henry Clay,” The Warsaw Signal, June 5, 1844.

[xvi] Doctrine and Covenants 135:4.

[xvii] Noah Webster, Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828 Edition

[xviii] Doctrine and Covenants 135:1.

[xix] Elder D. Todd Christofferson, “”The Prophet Joseph Smith”,” Brigham Young University-Idaho Devotional, (24 September 2013)

[xx] Christofferson.

[xxi] Doctrine and Covenants 122:7-9.

Filed Under: Uncategorized

VOTE TODAY FOR THE MORMON FAIR-CAST!

by

Podcast: Download (1.3MB)

Subscribe: RSS

VoteNow468x60

Daily voting for the winner of the People’s Choice Podcast Awards starts November 1. On that day, fans can begin voting every day for their favorite podcast in each category at www.podcastawards.com. Voting will be open every day for 15 days, and FANS CAN VOTE ONCE EACH DAY in every category. Winners will be announced at the Podcast Awards Ceremony, which will be held at the New Media Expo in Las Vegas on Jan 5th, 2014.

To vote, go to the podcastawards.com and find the Mormon Fair-Cast entry. It is listed under the Religion Inspiration category, which is near the bottom of the page on the right. It is the third category up from the bottom. Click on the Mormon Fair-Cast entry. Then scroll down and enter your name and email address. Click on the button that describes you best (Listener, Podcaster, or Both.) For most of you that will be “Listener.” Then click on the submit button on the right.

The Mormon Fair-Cast won the award for best religious podcast in 2011, but lost in 2012 to the Ardent Atheist podcast. This year, let’s be more ardent than the atheists! Please spread the word by telling your friends. Even if we don’t win the voting, we hope this will raise awareness of the great resources we have. If we do win, it is even better. You can post a link with instructions on Facebook, Twitter, or Google Plus. Remind your friends to vote each day, and thank you for your continued support of FairMormon!

 

Joseph Smith’s Greatest Hits

by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

________________________________

* This article also appeared in Meridian Magazine.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mormon Fair-Cast Nominated for Podcast Award

by

pa_logo-300x104The Mormon Fair-Cast has been nominated for the third year in a row for a People’s Choice Award for Best Podcast in the Religion Inspiration category. FairMormon wishes the thank all those who voted to nominate the Mormon Fair-Cast. There were about 4,000 shows nominated for awards this year. Four judges in each category chose the nominees by virtue of the following criteria: Number of Nominations (40%), Quality of Website Design (15%), Quality of Sound (15%), Quality of Podcast Delivery and Show Format (10%), and Relevance of Content (20%). The Mormon Fair-Cast won Best Podcast two years ago, but lost the award last year to the “Ardent Atheist” podcast. Daily voting for the winner starts November 1. On that day, please go to www.podcastawards.com and vote for the Mormon Fair-Cast. Vote again every day for the following 15 days. Please ask others to vote as well!

 

Betrayal and Our Relationship with Church History

by

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

In any relationship, one of the things that seems to cause the most pain and anger is the feeling of betrayal. This same problem can surface in our relationship with the Church. For example, if a member finds information that conflicts with his or her assumptions about Church history, they may feel that the Church has lied. The pain and anger of feeling betrayed may take the leading role in the desire to leave the faith while the original troubling issue or issues may become secondary. A testimony lost at this stage can be hard to restore. What might have been sufficient answers earlier become insufficient once resentment—as a result of presumably being deceived—replaces faith. At this point logic and rationale take a back seat to emotion and answers to the original challenging issues are often met by a litany of other issues.

When potentially troubling information is presented in faith-promoting ways, the information—accompanied by the weight of a faithful context—often helps members understand difficult issues within a framework of their beliefs. When hostile sources present the same information, they frequently claim or imply that the Church hides this information from members. The critics supposedly are merely exposing a “cover-up.” This may add weight to the contra-LDS source and give the impression that they (the critics) are really the objective truth-seekers who are merely uncovering the facts. It’s often not the information that makes people leave, but the perception that the information was “hidden.” The feelings of deception and betrayal ultimately drive many people out more frequently than the discovery itself.

Is there any truth to the charge that the Church has withheld challenging details of the past? The answer is both yes and no.

Information can be withheld intentionally or unintentionally. First we will discuss the intentional reasons. In the context of early creations of LDS history, we find a tradition among most nineteenth-century biographies (the primary form of historical creations) that emphasized the positive aspects of heroic figures in the hopes of inspiring readers while often exaggerating or even fabricating anecdotes—such as George Washington chopping down his father’s cherry tree. Frequently, in cases of early American biographies involving religious or philosophical movements, the movement took center stage and the “history” was a tool for evangelizing the movement. Any information that might harm the movement was withheld from the biography/history.

Early Mormon historians, like many historians of their era, were not trained in history but were instead influenced by the English Puritans whose histories were written as faithful explanations of their events. These Puritans (as well as early LDS historians) believed that, like the Hebrews before them, they were God’s chosen people whose coming to America was part of God’s unfolding plan. “Their history and biography,” note three prominent historians, “told the saga of God’s dealings as seen in their personal lives. In short, Puritan biography and autobiography were simultaneously scripture as well as history.” “Accuracy and realism were …largely things of the future.”[i]

Apostle George Q. Cannon, whose faith-promoting stories were intended for the youth of the Church, wrote some of the more popular historical accounts of early Mormonism. Such works, like many other non-LDS works of the nineteenth century, were defensive in tone, biased, one-dimensional, and devoted to evangelizing a particular perspective. Today such writings are often referred to as hagiographies. It was not until the middle of the twentieth century that the modern biography—critical, multi-dimensional, and objective (at least in principle)—“began to take its present form.”[ii] The early faith-promoting histories, however, became the source of historical knowledge for many Church members, launched similar popular works for decades to come, and influenced the versions of history that were taught in Church and official Church publications. While it can be said that early LDS histories intentionally withheld challenging and non-flattering information, in the context of the times this was not unique to Mormonism and is to be expected.

As for the unintentional censoring of information, we turn to the Church curriculum. Some ex-members complain that they never heard certain aspects of Church history from the Sunday School classes they attended. The purpose of Church curriculum, however, including Sunday School, Priesthood, and Relief Society, is to support the mission of the Church: to bring people to Christ. Very little actual history is discussed in Church classes. Even every fourth year when the Doctrine and Covenants is taught (which includes some Church history) the primary goal of the class is to help members draw closer to God, seek the Spirit, and understand gospel principles.

As an international Church, the correlation of materials and teachings is aimed at harmonizing lessons and instruction, and in accommodating the tender new member with basic Gospel principals—those teachings which affect our relationships with God and our fellow brothers and sisters.

Thousands of virtually untrained volunteers, with varying degrees of gospel and historical knowledge and education (or lack thereof) endeavor to bring the Spirit into the classroom so that class members can be spiritually edified. While some Gospel Doctrine teachers may be knowledgeable enough to share detailed historical information, the manuals generally give basic historical outlines that specifically relate to lessons focusing on one or more gospel principles and how to apply those principals in the lives of members. In short, Church is a place for worship, spiritual edification, and enlightenment, not for in-depth historical discussion.

Despite the primary foci of Church curriculum and official Church publications, the vast majority of challenging issues have seen brief discussions or notes in a variety of LDS-targeted publications, conferences, and programs.

If these topics have been mentioned, why are some members shocked when they first encounter them in LDS-critical publications? Americans, unfortunately, are by and large, literate but uniformed. We tend to spend less time reading than watching TV or surfing the Internet. Several studies show that fewer Americans read books, and many are severely uninformed in regards to significant historical issues, current events, or scientific facts. According to Carl Sagan, 63% of Americans are unaware that the last dinosaur died before the first humans lived, and nearly half of American adults do not know that the Earth goes around the sun and that it takes a year to do so.[iii]

According to one author who wrote about the decline in American religious knowledge, 60% of Americans cannot name five of the Ten Commandments and 50% of high school seniors think Sodom and Gomorrah were married.[iv] Another study claims that one third of Americans polled believe that evangelist Billy Graham delivered the Sermon on the Mount.[v]

With such non-reader ignorance, is it really any wonder that a number of Mormons are unfamiliar with some of the more difficult issues that have been discussed in Church publications? To repeat a comment generally attributed to Mark Twain: “The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can’t read them.”[vi]

The charge that the Church has hidden the truth has not landed on deaf ears.The Church “has made no effort to hide or obscure its history,” elder Marlin K. Jensen said, but some aspects “haven’t been emphasized often because they were not necessarily germane to what is taught at present.”

Can the Church do better to explain its history, even to its own members? Sure, Jensen said. “Can we weave some of this into our seminaries, institutes and adult curriculum? I think we can, and efforts are under way to do that.” The church has assigned a staffer to create “a strategy to get church history onto the Web,” he said. “We are also working on an initiative to answer some of these more pressing questions.” [vii]

We need better inoculation and I think the Church is making, and will continue to make, efforts to see this happen. The Joseph Smith Papers Project is a great start. This project has digitized a huge amount of early Mormon documents including early copies of the Book of Mormon, early revelations and letters, and even copies of the surviving portions of the Joseph Smith papyri. And it’s all available on-line, free for anyone who wants to study them.

While the Gospel is rich, simple, and the singular path to everlasting happiness, Church history is rich, complex, and multi-dimensional. Unfortunately, many past and current members have conflated the two by expressing historical narratives in a manner that undervalued their true complexities. The unfortunate consequence of circumscribed historical narratives resulted in the frustrated testimonies of twenty-first century members (both lay members and leaders) who first learned of the historical complexities on hostile websites.

The same twenty-first century technology which has contributed to member feelings of betrayal, however, is now being used by the Church (both in current and future projects) to help struggling members as well as to inoculate members before they stumble.

The entire world’s history of God’s involvement with His children is a story of imperfect humans accomplishing the work of the Lord even while continuing to struggle with sin, misunderstanding, feeble attempts, and weakness. The wonderful thing about such a realization is that God can also work through me—and each of us—despite our own weaknesses, sins, and faults.

_______________________________

* This article also appeared in Meridian Magazine.

[i] Ronald W. Walker, David J. Whittaker, and James B. Allen, Mormon History (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2001), 117.

[ii] Ibid., 117, 119–120.

[iii] Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark (New York: Ballantine Books, 1996), 324.

[iv] Cathy Lynn Grossman, “Americans Get an ‘F’ in Religion,” USA Today (14 March 2007);available online  (accessed 17 September 2012).

[v] “What Americans Should But Don’t Know About Religion,” Pew Research Center Publications (6 February 2008) (accessed 17 September 2012).

[vi] While this quote is almost universally attributed to Samuel Clemens (a.k.a. Mark Twain), I have been unable to find the original source for this quote. See James Glen Stovall  (accessed 14 December 2012).

Putting Doubt in Perspective

by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

…

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

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

…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 . . . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Not any time,” was the answer.

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

The answer was, “None.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Lady of the Temple: Academy for Temple Studies Conference

by

banner2If you haven’t yet done so, I would highly recommend that you register for the Academy for Temple Studies Conference that will take place next Wednesday, October 23, at Utah State University. I attended last year and found it to be one of the most exciting academic conferences I’ve ever attended. You can find out more and register here.

The Academy for Temple Studies is pattered after the Temple Studies Group that has existed in the United Kingdom for the past several years. The first conference took place last year and featured Margaret Barker who is considered by many (myself included), to be one of the most exciting Biblical scholars alive today. I am very excited that she will appearing at the conference again this year. She has done ground-breaking work related to the early Jewish understanding of the the nature of God and temples. While her work on temples and the worship of the son of God by early Jews is interesting to Mormons, (it should be noted that she is Methodist minister) her recent publication regarding the Jewish worship of a female deity, called “The Mother of the Lord,” is especially intriguing. This book was recently reviewed in the Interpreter here. Her presentation this year is entitled, “The Woman Clothed With the Sun in Revelation 12.”  She will discuss the female figure that appears in the Book of Revelation and posit that the woman is actually the Mother of Yahweh.

Another exciting non-Mormon scholar who will be appearing at the conference is the archaeologist William Dever, author of “Did God Have a Wife,” reviewed in the FARMS Review of Books here. Dever will give an illustrated lecture that is based upon the findings reported in that book.

In my view, the conference would be worth attending if it only involved Barker and Dever. But is also includes a number of important and insightful Mormon scholars as well, not the least of which includes Valerie Hudson, someone who is well-known to those who have attended FairMormon Conferences during the past few years.

I hope that as many of you as can will join me in Logan next week for this exciting event.

Science & Mormonism: Cosmos, Earth, & Man

by

science-mormonism2Registration is closed for the first Interpreter Foundation symposium (co-sponsored by FairMormon and LDSAgents.com). However, the event will be streamed live on YouTube.

It will take place on November 9 and will begin at 8:30 MST.

Science and Mormonism have nearly always been on very friendly terms, with Church members sharing the deep conviction that, as expressed by former scientist and apostle Elder James E. Talmage, “within the gospel of Jesus Christ there is room and place for every truth thus far learned by man, or yet to be made known.” Subsequent Presidents and General Authorities of the Church have advanced similar views about the ultimate compatibility of religious and scientific truths and, with notably few exceptions, have maintained markedly positive attitudes toward both the methods and conclusions of mainstream science and the advance of modern technology.

This symposium will feature the personal perspectives of prominent LDS scientists addressing the theme of “Cosmos, Earth, and Man.” Through presentations, panels, and interactive discussions, attendees will hear concise and colorful summaries of the state-of-the-art in scientific research relating to these topics and will gain a deeper appreciation of the unique contributions of LDS doctrine to the ongoing conversation.

For more details, see: http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/events/2013-symposium-science-mormonism-cosmos-earth-man/

One True Church Vs. Everybody Else

by

This is a question that has occupied my mind for many years. I majored in Asian History at BYU and later at UC Berkeley, and have had much contact with non-Christian philosophical systems. I spent much of my adult life in Japan (although now in Oregon USA), married a Japanese woman (who is a convert to LDS) and raised three children in both Western and Eastern cultures. We participate in her family religious traditions, which is Nichiren Buddhism, and I have had occasion to read and translate some of the works of Nichiren, the 13th century founder of that Buddhist sect.

In so doing, I have become convinced that Nichiren was a prophet, or at the very least, a man of God. He lived in a time of great crisis in Japan, and went about preaching repentance and a return to the True Path. (Reminds me of Jeremiah and, like Jeremiah, this did not sit well with the authorities, in that he was constantly persecuted and in danger of his life.) Around 1260 he wrote a famous treatise in which he asserted that if Japan did not soon turn from its wrong path it would come under attack from a foreign army that would devastate the nation. Imagine the shock when, just 14 years later, the Mongols arrived with a vast fleet on the shores of Kyushu. (The Japanese barely beat them off that year, and again in 1281 before the Mongols gave up. Famously, the Kamikaze (Divine Wind, or in other words, a typhoon) blew away the Mongol fleet both times. And this was the only time in recorded history that Japan was invaded by foreign armies before the arrival of the Americans in 1945.) Nichiren lived long enough to see this, and to see a chastened Japanese elite turn their allegiance to him. His teachings underpinned the Japanese samurai ethic of later centuries.

When my wife and I are visiting in Japan, we always make a point of touring the great religious sites of Buddhism and also Shinto, the original nativist religion. These are holy places where we can be near to God.

In the same way, when I visit Europe, I make a point of visiting the great cathedrals of Christendom, and smaller churches as well. And I love the Christmas Eve midnight mass as a way of honoring the Savior’s birth.

In other words, I have no objection to other religious traditions that bring people closer to God. But then, you may ask, why do we bother telling people We Have The Truth?

What exactly do we have that is unique?

First, it seems to me that all people everywhere on Earth intuitively believe in eternal marriage. All look forward to eternities with their beloved spouses. Yet no one but LDS explicitly include it in their doctrine, and tell us how it is accomplished. In the General Conference last weekend, this theme of the Family was repeated constantly. No other subject (save the Atonement, about which I will get to in a minute) received so much attention. It is a promise that should attract people no matter what their cultural background.

Second, all people everywhere wonder how persons can return to God. Buddhism (and Hinduism, from which it is derived) thinks about this a lot, and has developed a rich philosophy based on the idea of self-enlightenment, right thinking, denial of material desires, and so on, all of which we as LDS would have no quibbles with. Once a person has done all these things, he has become perfect, and achieves Nirvana. But this is impossibly difficult, as even the most fervent Buddhists realize, and so they call on Buddhas (of various stripes) and Bodhisattvas (persons already enlightened) for assistance in reaching this goal. This is really not so far removed from the concept of the Atonement, where Jesus plays the role of arbiter between ourselves and God. In other words, the Atonement is a universal message, for all people, and persons of non-Christian cultures can recognize this, through the spirit.

Third (and this links to the First and Second points), we have Temples to tie people together with all their ancestors back into God’s family. No other religion can offer this gift. Your ancestors do not have to be consigned to the nether regions just because they were born in the wrong century and the wrong culture. All will come right in the end.

Fourth, a claim of priesthood authority. All of the above three points are performed by men authorized by God, with a priesthood geneology that all can trace back to Joseph Smith, and then to Peter, James, and John, to Jesus, and finally to God. Where men like Nichiren could (and in my opinion, DID) receive guidance from God on the issues facing their people, they did not have priesthood authority to continue. (And like all religious movements, Nichiren’s splintered in later centuries into various schools, each of which claim descent from Nichiren, with a famous modern version being Soka Gakkai, founded about 60 years ago.)

So, in summary, our LDS church has a legitimate basis to laying claim to being a truly universal religion.

Indeed, I am reminded of a statement by Gordon B. Hinckley to “bring all the good that you have and let us see if we can add to it”.

David Farnsworth

Tigard OR 97224

Filed Under: Uncategorized