• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

FAIR

  • Find Answers
  • Blog
  • Media & Apps
  • Conference
  • Bookstore
  • Archive
  • About
  • Get Involved
  • Search

Blog

Fundamentalist or Fundamentals? Get a Grip on Your Faith

July 25, 2012 by John Lynch

Some people cling to elements of their faith as if any threat to it would serve as a death blow to their eternal lives. Like proverbial sand in their hands, they hold it so tight that their grip presses the precious granules through their fingers, and they watch their shifting cargo slip grain-by-grain through their grasp until they finally consider there is not enough to hold, and they let go completely. They are left to wonder how quickly it was lost when they had held on so tight.

A cute animated video series that pokes fun at major Hollywood movies once did a satire of the Blair Witch Project. A famous line from that video is often repeated by my children. In a desire to seek safety, one character implores“Quick, back to the tent!” Another responds sarcastically “Yea, the tent is safe. Nothing can penetrate the NYLON!” My boys always follow such quotes with hearty laughter, unaware of the profound realities exemplified in this humorous poke at a famous horror film. Like those who cling to the sand of faith in their hands, some of us put too much trust in the nylon fabric of some simple element of our faith. We trust in a child like perspective that is thin yet unsustainable under any real threat, seeking the sense of security it once represented for us, unaware that it provides no real protection but only hides from us from what scares us outside.

For the past 15 years I have worked with countless people who, for one reason or another, have struggled with their faith. Some had already left in their hearts, but reached out in a desperate last attempt to regain what had already been released – like the sand that had already slipped through their fingers. Others reach out in response to someone they love who has abandoned what they had once “known”, looking for help to bolster the faith that remained, and give them answer to the criticisms that threaten them. Those who struggle are often in the throes of spiritual agony, looking desperately for the safety of the “tent” that had served as a sense of security in the past.

In contrast, some people manage the nuances and twists and turns of critical information seemingly without the emotional and spiritual knots that become the undoing others. These seem able to navigate these challenges without the compulsion to cling to elements that slip through their fingers, or to seek safety behind a fabric of perception that brings no real safety at all. These are comfortable with the shifting sands of changing perspectives, and are comfortable knowing that, while the tent may represent security, the only real path to safety is not in returning, but in pressing forward.

Faith is a word that by definition includes uncertainty. Alma states plainly that “faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true.” (Alma 32:21). By this we learn that faith demands that we not have proof or evidence demonstrated by our natural senses, but that we persist towards that which cannot be demonstrated by the natural man. In the Lectures on Faith, we read “that faith is the assurance which men have of the existence of things which they have not seen—that is, with their natural eyes—and the principle of action in all intelligent beings.” (Lectures on Faith 1:9). Faith is the power that drives us forward to what is true despite our lack of assurance so often sought by what nature has endowed us withas our senses.

In a similar vein, the exercise of faith, like a muscle, occurs when there is opposition to it. The muscle that is strengthened is the one that persists to perform despite the weight that works against it. This muscle of faith therefore demands that we continue in our belief and hope for that which is true even in the very presence of that which not only fails to confirm our belief, but actually challenges it!

Consider faith in the same light as courage. Does the lion tamer, who raised the deadly giant creature, require courage when putting his head in the mouth of the feline he raised from a cub? Perhaps it requires some, but what about the little old lady in the third row? She knows nothing of the animal, and its propensities. She has only heard its roar, seen its threatening teeth, and shrunk at the glistening muscles that drive it. Ask her to do the same as the lion tamer. Which of these two will show the most courage for the very same act? It is the one who faces the greatest fear! Even so it is with our faith.

Those who know no doubt rely upon faith, but it is exercised most greatly by those who face doubt in large and threatening ways because they actually know less. For these, persistence in behavior – being “faith full” –draws upon their reservoir of trust in God much more so than those whose personality or experience delivers no such doubts.

When I have seen people who were otherwise stalwart in faith shrink in the face of adversity. It is usually because they cling too tightly to some element of belief that itself is not some solid monolith as they might have supposed, but turns out to have shifting elements like sand. As they increase their grip on the granules, the shifting nature lets the grains slip one by one out of their hand until there is not enough for them to hold to.

The actual topics of conversation in this regard could be myriad. It is almost always some teaching that is culturalized such that it becomes unofficially canonized in Mormon lore, or is perhaps something that was once taught and is no longer adhered to. We see this most markedly when the Church changes a policy or decision. Two large examples include the cessation of the practice of polygamy, and the lifting of the restriction of priesthood ordination of people from African ancestry. When polygamy stopped, some people clung to practices of prior years, and could not handle the shifting sands of practice. In the case of the priesthood ban, some could not let go of faulty teachings that sought to justify it, and they abandoned their faith because of it.

People who cling so tightly to teachings and beliefs like this which can change are generally referred to as “fundamentalists”. These are people who cannot manage threats to their faith because of changes to what they had anchored themselves to. They leave no room for ongoing revelation, presuming that what was must always remain. Rather than reconsider their own thinking or assumptions, they conclude that the Church itself has moved away from truth and they find themselves rejecting it all! It is not because they lacked spiritual confirmations of gospel truths, or genuine communication with God. Rather, it is because the changes forced them to re-evaluate their thinking, and forced them to consider their faith all over again. Their assumptions – the grains of fundamental issues in their handful of beliefs – must be reconsidered.

Because of one element that is now questioned, they must rethink it all (or so they suppose). In the end, they find themselves exchanging what they know for the doubts they now have forced upon them! The result is the proverbial baby swirling the drain with the bath wash.

Our friends and neighbors who seek the safety of the tent are those who look back on the naïve safety of what was really just a temporary shelter, believing they can regain the sense of security they once knew. These people have often had affirming experiences that touched them, and changed them. However, they generally failed to move on to house their faith in fundamental beliefs that has both a firm foundation and walls that cannot be shaken or penetrated. Unfortunately, some bells cannot be un-rung! When the safety of their prior perceptions are called into question, all that can be done is to press forward and leave the seeming but deceptive safety of the tent and seek that shelter that comes from a more firm foundation.

There are many topics that can shake our faith and threaten the security of what we “know”. I need not recount them here. The topics that shake one are not an issue for another. Some people are seemingly never shaken. For those who endure, however, there is a predictable pattern that others might do well to follow. Such who endure are those who are not fundamentalist, but who focus on fundamentals. These are not those who cling to elements of belief, but who get a grip on faith!

The fundamental issues in the restored gospel are not expansive. They are really quite simple. I tend to think of them as the following: First, the priesthood of God has been restored through Joseph Smith, a prophet of God. Second, that very priesthood persists in the Church in the leadership of a First Presidency and Quorum of Twelve Apostles, men ordained with keys which control the covenant exercise of the ordinances that bind us and our Father in commitments and promises. Third, the Lord continues to govern His church through these leaders, and the process of revelation available to them is available to me individually so that like Nephi, I can know for myself what they know. Fourth, the Lord has revealed scriptures in addition to the Bible that can help me govern my spiritual life, including and especially the Book of Mormon. Fifth, Jesus Christ loves me such that he willingly suffered what I rightly deserve to suffer for my mistakes, but he freely gives to me the opportunity to let go of my guilt such that my confidence can be regained in the presence of God and I can return to Him as His child!

These five fundamentals I can hold to. I have had spiritual confirmations that I can rely on that affirm the same to me. These issues I need not exchange for temporary questions that arise from Church history, political commentary, or changes in practice. Virtually everything else, I need not cling to.

When it comes down to it, I need to base myself in these fundamentals, and avoid the fundamentalism that leads me to question the leaders who are so basic to the fundamental principle of ongoing revelation. If God does indeed provide ongoing revelation, and he teaches line upon line, precept upon precept, then it leads to reason that those in the past taught things that sometime in the future may not be believed. That is OK! We need not think that because God used one infallible prophet to guide us that the next infallible prophet cannot guide us even closer to what is right. Or, that the shifting needs of time and circumstances might not call for changing actions today compared to yesterday.

When I do encounter that which threatens my belief, the healthiest thing for me to do is return not to the thin fabric of tent of some tangential experience, but reaffirm for myself the fundamental teachings I already “know”. I don’t need to cling to the shifting uncertainty of my assumptions, but to hold simply to the basic teachings foundational in the gospel. In this light I can persist, despite my doubts, across the chasm of uncertainty until I am able to reconcile what I know with what I don’t. I do this by recalling how merciful the Lord has been with me, and with all his Children. My journal, the scriptures, and the experiences of others can remind me of the affirmations I have already received on these fundamental issues. I do this by continuing to do what I know in my heart of hearts is right so that the Spirit,who can quickly withdraw when offended, is comfortable with me in His presence. I do this by keeping close to my Father in Heaven, expressing myself to him freely, and letting him express freely to me. And, I do this by letting go of my own assumptions, and letting God guide me in wisdoms paths. In so doing, I can find the strength to persist.

As I venture out of the deceptive safety of my thinly veiled tent, I may need to re-evaluate some of my original assumptions. This can be challenging, but necessary. Do I associate my faith with that which is not fundamental? It doesn’t really matter if the ward I attended as a youth has the deacons line up on the side of the chapel, or in the front when passing the sacrament! It doesn’t matter whether Joseph translated the Book of Mormon using a seer stone in a hat or aUrim and Thummim set in spectacles. It doesn’t matter if polygamy started with Joseph or Brigham. What matters is that I know the fundamentals, and that I have a spiritual grounding in them.

So a brief bit of advice. As you sojourn out in the online world where “anything goes” and truth and falsehood share equal billing, don’t be a fundamentalist, but focus on the fundamentals themselves. And don’t cling to your assumptions of belief so tightly that the Lord cannot guide you through the progressive world of ongoing revelation. Rather, get a grip on your faith! Focus on the simple truths you know by staying close to the Father that loves you. Then, as you learn more, you will have the patience with your faith to cross the chasms of uncertainty you are sure to encounter. After all, if God didn’t expect you to journey through life with doubts, he would be here himself telling you what to do. No, he give us doubts so that we might exercise faith, and when we do, we become strong enough to be useful to Him and His kingdom, and earn for ourselves a seat at His marriage feast.

This article also appeared in Meridian Magazine.

Filed Under: Apologetics

Mormon FAIR-Cast 98: John Welch on Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon

July 25, 2012 by SteveDensleyJr

https://media.blubrry.com/mormonfaircast/www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Religion-Today-for-Sunday-July-22.mp3

Podcast: Download (8.8MB)

Subscribe: RSS

In 1967, an ancient form of Hebrew poetry, called “chiasmus,” was discovered by a young Mormon missionary named John Welch, while he was serving in Germany. When Hugh Nibley learned of the discovery, he told Welch, “Young man, I think you have made the first significant discovery to come out of the BYU.” In this episode of Religion Today that originally aired on July 22, 2012, Martin Tanner talks with FARMS founder John Welch about what chiasmus is, how he discovered it in the Book of Mormon and some of the implications of that discovery.

Professor Welch is one of the presenters at the 2012 FAIR Conference. For more information about the conference, and to purchase tickets, go to FAIRlds.org.

John W. Welch is the Robert K. Thomas Professor of Law at the J. Reuben Clark Law School, where teaches courses on tax exempt organizations, ancient laws in the Bible and Book of Mormon, and Joseph Smith and the law. He was educated at Brigham Young University with a B.A. in History and a M.A. in Classical Languages. He served a mission in South Germany (during which he discovered chiasmus in the Book of Mormon), studied Greek philosophy at Oxford University as a Woodrow Wilson Fellow, earned his law degree at Duke University, and practiced law in the Los Angeles firm of O’Melveny and Myers.

He is well known as the founder of FARMS (the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies) and since 1991 he has served as the editor-in-chief of BYU Studies Quarterly. He also was a Director of Special Projects for the BYU Religious Studies Center, the general editor of the Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, a member of the board of editors for Macmillan’s Encyclopedia of Mormonism, and on the steering committee of the Biblical Law Section of the Society of Biblical Literature.

A number of his recent publications presenting striking discoveries concerning Joseph Smith and the law, the Sermon on the Mount, the parable of the Good Samaritan, the Trial of Jesus, King Benjamin’s speech, the Book of Mormon as a handbook of Church administration, and the nature and roles of evidence in law, science, and the nurturing of faith.

He is married to Jeannie Sutton. They have four children and sixteen grandchildren. He has served twice as bishop and also as counselor in a stake presidency.

This recording was used by permission of KSL Radio and does not necessarily represent the views of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or of FAIR.

Filed Under: Book of Mormon, Podcast

Mormon FAIR-Cast 97: Building the Nauvoo Temple

July 17, 2012 by SteveDensleyJr

https://media.blubrry.com/mormonfaircast/www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Goodwin-on-the-Nauvoo-Temple.mp3

Podcast: Download (30.7MB)

Subscribe: RSS

The Nauvoo Temple was both the second and the 113th temple constructed by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The temple has remained close to the hearts of members of the Church ever since the time the Saints in Nauvoo had to leave the temple behind when they fled the city and moved West. Once the temple burned to the ground in 1848, it seemed lost to history. Yet, with its iconic Sunstones, it remained an integral part of the panorama of American religious history. So in 1999, it was with great excitement that the news was received that the temple would be rebuilt.

Steve Goodwin was the project architect on the Nauvoo Temple. In this interview, he shares his experiences researching the original design of the temple and seeing the project through to its magnificent finish. He also shares his insights regarding symbolic aspects of the temple and the way in which modern temple architects approach symbolism in their designs.

For more information about the symbolism of the Nauvoo Temple, see the FAIR Wiki entry found here.

The opinions expressed in this interview do not necessarily represent the opinions of FAIR or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Filed Under: LDS History, Podcast, Temples

Mormon FAIR-Cast 96: FAIR on the Radio Pt 2

July 11, 2012 by SteveDensleyJr

https://media.blubrry.com/mormonfaircast/www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/John-Lynch-Steve-Smoot-FAIR-Conf-1.mp3

Podcast: Download (21.6MB)

Subscribe: RSS

This is the second part of the interview with John Lynch and Stephen Smoot that originally aired on June 27 and is posted here by permission of K-Talk Radio. The opinions expressed in this interview do not necessarily represent the views of FAIR or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Filed Under: Apologetics, Podcast

Mormon FAIR-Cast 96: FAIR on the Radio Pt 1

July 11, 2012 by SteveDensleyJr

https://media.blubrry.com/mormonfaircast/www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/John-Lynch-Steve-Smoot-FAIR-Conf-P.mp3

Podcast: Download (21.4MB)

Subscribe: RSS

FAIR Board Chairman John Lynch and FAIR Member Stephen Smoot appeared on K-Talk radio, in Salt Lake City, Utah to discuss the mission of FAIR, its history and to take questions from callers. Some of the issues addressed were:

  • What are the core beliefs one must maintain in order to be considered an “orthodox” Mormon?
  • What is the distinction between knowledge and belief?
  • Why are there different versions of Joseph Smith’s first vision?
  • If Mitt Romney is elected President, will he be required to adopt the political positions of the Church?
  • Is the Church a racist or sexist organization?

John and Stephen also discussed the 2012 FAIR Conference that is being held in Utah on August 2 and 3 in Sandy, Utah.

This recording originally aired on June 27 and is posted here by permission of K-Talk Radio. The opinions expressed in this interview do not necessarily represent the views of FAIR or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Filed Under: Apologetics, FAIR Conference, Podcast, Politics, Racial Issues, Women

Mormon FAIR-Cast 95: The Reality of the Resurrection

July 4, 2012 by SteveDensleyJr

https://media.blubrry.com/mormonfaircast/www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/2012_04_08_religion_today.mp3

Podcast: Download (8.9MB)

Subscribe: RSS

Can people really come back to life? What evidence is there for the resurrection of Christ? In this episode of Religion Today, which originally aired on KSL Radio on April 8, 2012, Martin Tanner discusses the reality of the resurrection and the hope that lies therein for all of us.

This recording was used by permission of KSL Radio and does not necessarily represent the views of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or of FAIR.

Note that the first part of this recording has been lost.

Filed Under: Early Christianity, Podcast

It’s a Matter of Relevance

July 2, 2012 by Lance Starr

Like many others, I have been watching events unfold at NAMI and have been somewhat perplexed by the various narratives that have arisen in regards to it.    I have my opinions about who is right and who is wrong (where such terms can even be said to be appropriate in such a context) but they are not relevant, or even important, to anyone but me.

I have, however, been fascinated by one of the narratives that has come forth, that being that one of the reasons that Peterson, Hamblin, Midgley, Smith, et. al., have been let go is because they have regularly engaged in vicious “ad hominem” attacks against the various people whose works they reviewed.  Of course, the charge is nothing new.  For years, critics of NAMI (and before that FARMS) have claimed that these people engage in rampant ad hominem attacks.  I must admit, therefore, that I found it somewhat amusing when Mr. John Dehlin, of Mormon Stories fame, posted a request on his Facebook page for examples of ad hominem attacks coming from NAMI.  See  http://www.facebook.com/johndehlin.  It is also quite instructive that, as of this writing, not single response of the 48+ responses that has been posted, has actually identified a single instance of an actual ad hominem attack.  One would assume that if such tactics were as common as critics often claim then such examples should be readily forthcoming.  I suspect that that the reason that such examples are not more ubiquitous is because many critics have confused sarcasm and irony for ad hominem when, in fact, they are not the same.

Nevertheless, I suspect that a sustained search of the thousands of pages of apologetic writings, both in print and on the internet, will probably turn up some example or another of an ad hominem attack.   The question is, however, is an ad hominem attack always, and for all purposes, illegitimate?  Personally, I think not.  It is, as the title of my post suggests, a question of relevance.

Relevancy, as the word suggests, is not an inherent characteristic of any piece of evidence but exists as a “relation between an item of evidence and a proposition sought to be proved.”  See George F. James, “Relevancy, Probability and the Law,” 29 Cal. L. Rev. 689, 690-91 (1941).  If a piece of evidence tends to prove (or disprove) the proposition for which it is put forth then it must needs be relevant.

As I read some of the posts in response to Mr. Dehlin’s request, two names were often given up as examples (1) Martha Beck; and (2) Grant Palmer.   I am an attorney by profession and my thinking and approach to various subjects is informed by my education and experience in that profession.  Based on that, I have to say that I find these two examples to be particularly poor examples to flaunt as proof positive of the apologist’s “ad hominem” approach.

Take, for example, Marth Beck.  Ms. Beck is the daughter of Hugh Nibley, one of the most respected LDS scholars of the past century and the man whom many would perceive as the father of modern LDS apologetics.   Without recounting the whole sordid mess, Ms. Beck wrote a book in which she made some extremely serious allegations of sexual misconduct on the part of her father towards her.  As can be imagined, LDS response was swift and, I’m sure Ms. Beck felt, quite personal.  The question is, however, was the response appropriate?  Was it appropriate to look at Ms. Beck’s personal history, character and reputation?  My reply is, How could it have been otherwise?

You see, the problem with Ms. Beck’s allegations was that they were totally unsupported by any other “evidence” which could be considered.   Therefore, she made her history and character a legitimate source of inquiry by her own allegations.  She wanted her readers to take her word for the veracity of what she claimed occurred, but how can we, as her reader, do so when we know nothing about her?  In other words, her character was “relevant” to the very case that she was making.   Your character, while not definitive, is relevant to resolving probabilities of guilty.   Thus, when many of the claims that Ms. Beck made were shown to be demonstrably false, and when her siblings came forward to directly contradict her account, her reputation for veracity became subject to examination.  Moreover, would anyone really want it any other way?  Just ask anyone who has ever been unjustly accused of a heinous crime such as sexual abuse and see if they don’t want their accuser’s reputation for honesty and integrity fully vetted.   Of course, this does not mean that a serial liar cannot also be the victim of abuse; it simply means that the liar’s testimony is going to come under additional scrutiny because it seems axiomatic that the more of a penchant a person has for shading the truth, the more likely their testimony is false.

Fortunately for all of us, allegations such as those made by Ms. Beck are rare.  That brings us to the second example that was posted on Dehlin’s board, that being the case of Grant Palmer.  At the time he published his book, An Insider’s View to Mormon Origins, several essays were published which took a searching look at Mr. Palmer’s career in CES and were highly critical of his time there.  Many people took offense to this penetrating look at the person of Mr. Palmer.  The question is, again, was this appropriate?  Or, better stated, was it “relevant”?  Again, I have a problem seeing how it could not be.

As Dr. Midgley pointed out in is review at the time, both Mr. Palmer and his publisher, made much of his “insider” status.  Why?  Obviously, because it lent a sense of credibility and expertise to the argument that he made.  If a person sets himself out as an expert in some field of endeavor, his claim to expertise is, by definition, relevant.  In a legal setting, when either side calls an expert witness, the very first thing that happens before the “expert” is allowed to present any material testimony regarding the actual facts of the case, is a vetting of his alleged experience and expertise.   Why?  Because the expert is about to present evidence to jury which he wants them to accept.  It is the jury’s job to weight that evidence and make an informed decision.  The expert’s actual level of expertise is, therefore, relevant to the case being made.

Palmer claimed, at the beginning of his book, that “for thirty-four years I was primarily an Institute director for the Church Educational System (CES)” (p. vii).  Palmer raised this issue, not his reviewers, and he used this claim to establish his credibility.  Midgley then described what he learned, with Palmer’s help:

“Palmer began his CES career teaching at the Church College of New Zealand, which is the Latter-day Saint high school in Templeview (1967—70). He was hired to teach British Empire history but was eventually shifted to teaching religion classes. For health reasons, he did not complete his four-year contract. Palmer was then made the CES coordinator, his official title, for the Whittier Stake in California (1970—73), where he also taught some college-age students at Rio Hondo Jr. College and Whittier College. He then worked one year on a Ph.D. at Brigham Young University before being again assigned as CES coordinator for the Chico Stake (1975—80), where he also taught college-age students at Butte College in Oroville, California. These assignments, where he was the sole CES employee, came at the beginning of his career. He had nothing to do with LDS Institutes of Religion, as that label is commonly understood, for the last two decades of his CES career. Why? In 1980 he relocated to the Salt Lake Valley, where he taught seminary first at East High School (1980—81) and then at Brighton High School (1981—87). He ended his CES career not teaching but counseling in a jail. What the word “primarily” means is that for nine of the thirty-four years of his CES career, while supervising local seminary teachers, he was also an institute “director.” Even if one were inclined to count his counseling work at a jail as being an institute director, which I am not willing to do, his career seems to have taken a downward spiral, but neither this fact nor any of the reasons for it is mentioned by Palmer or in the Signature hype for An Insider’s View.

I realize that some will complain that, by probing Palmer’s background (or beliefs), I offer a diversion from the issues he raises and that what I have presented is an ad hominem attack. This is nonsense. Palmer and his publisher have made his CES career an issue.[1]”

And so, it turns out that Palmer misleads his audience about his CES role and experience.  How can this not be relevant?  He raised the issue, and used it to strengthen his argument, and augment his own authority.  Those who disagree must be allowed to demonstrate that the claim is misleading.  Do the critics think it right for Palmer to get away with being deceptive?  If not, how can that be remedied if reviewers cannot point out the facts—facts which Midgley acquired with Palmer’s assistance?

Why is this relevant?  Perhaps another example, more removed LDS apologetics, can enlighten.  The PBS program Frontline recently ran a program dealing with forensic evidence and its uses in criminal trials.  A part of that program included an examination of forensic credentialing and the American College of Forensic Examiners International (ACFEI). It investigates whether certification can aid in a person’s ability to testify as an expert witness in court — and whether certain types of certification are acceptably rigorous for this role in the legal system.  In short, it turns out that ACFEI is little more than a diploma mill (you can read the report for yourself here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/criminal-justice/real-csi/dr-cyril-wecht-the-benefits-of-forensic-credentialing/).    Do you think a jury would not be interested in this fact? Would it not affect their deliberations?  At the very least, doesn’t it affect the weight given to the evidence presented?   Dozens, if not hundreds, of people were sent to jail (and in some cases received the death penalty) based at least in part on the testimony of the “experts” certified by this organization.  It would seem that the relevancy of the education and training of the person providing the testimony should be quite clear.  Moreover, how should this not apply in a scholarly context?

For example, if a critic of the Book of Abraham has no formal training in Egyptology, is that not relevant to the weight given to his conclusions?  If a critic of the Book of the Mormon who criticizes the Mesoamerican aspects to the book’s claims has no formal training in Mesoamerican studies, is that not relevant?   Interestingly, one of the most prevalent ad hominem attacks that I have seen come in this context, when critics dismiss the work of trained experts such as John Clark, Brant Gardner, and John Gee because “they are Mormon.”   It is a classic example of the ad hominem fallacy of trying to get people to ignore the actual argument due to a perceived flaw in the person who made the argument.  This is not to say that amateurs cannot and do not present reasoned arguments that must be dealt with.  In my profession, there are many people who believe they are every bit as capable of defending themselves as a trained attorney.[2]  Nevertheless, most people prefer to hire a person who has the training and field work.

Another example comes to mind: In his biography of Joseph Smith, author Dan Vogel employed Family System Theory in an attempt to understand the Mormon Prophet.  Nevertheless, Mr. Vogel is not a trained psychologist, psychiatrist or even a Licensed Clinical Social Worker.  How is that information not relevant?  And the corresponding review by NAMI employed a response from people with the relevant training who provided what I thought were materially damaging responses to the argument’s Vogel made.

My whole point here is that, in many instances, an examination of the person making the argument is appropriate.  It gives us a basis for weighing and measuring the argument being made as well as understanding the context in which the argument is made.  That is not ad hominem.

Non-LDS scholars have long realized these facts.  If (say) Vogel were to present a logical syllogism, it makes little difference whether he is trained in Family System Theory or anything else.  All that matters is the syllogism.  Unfortunately, most issues with scripture, ancient langauges, history, and all the other topics that impact “apologetics” aren’t like mathematical or logical syllogisms. One historian noted that these issues sometimes need to come to the fore if we care about the truth, even though people will get upset:

Except with very good friends, it is considered tactless and discourteous to suggest that someone’s views are a reflection of his or her background, prejudices, or psychic needs.  We stick to the reasoned arguments advanced, even if privately we think those arguments are shallow rationalizations.  The need to behave this was in scholarly discussion is obvious, as are the costs of violating the rule.  But if, as historians of an ongoing discussion, we believe that the protagonists are in fact often disingenuous in their arguments, are following hidden agendas, and are expressing  views shaped by ‘extra rational’ factors, what kind of historians would we be if we suppressed this perception?  (Of course, the perception might be wrong, but that is quite another issue.)[3]

And yet (as in the case of Palmer, above) sometimes this type of analysis is vital:

…an ad hominem argument is a device intended to divert attention from the critical examination of the substance of an argument, and to discredit that argument by dragging in irrelevant considerations having to do with the character or motives of its author.  That this is disreputable procedure is clear enough in cases where the argument itself is ‘followable’: in which those being addressed have the opportunity of addressing themselves systematically and exclusively to ‘relevant’ considerations.  The impersonal ethos of science is based on the proposition that what science offers is ‘public knowledge,’ subject to criticial examination by the scientific community.  The ‘replicable experiment’ is the prime example of this characteristic of science…. On this assumption, ad hominem arguments are surely an irrelevancy, and should be scornfully dismissed.

But, are the characteristic products of historians like this?  The historian has seen, at first hand, a great mass of evidence, often unpublished, and difficult to access.  The historian develops an interpretation of this evidence based on years of immersion in the material [critics of the Church develop their views in a much shorter period of time, and with much less profundity]—together, of course, with the perceptual apparatus and assumptions he or she brings to it.  Historians employ devices, the footnote being the most obvious example, to attain for their work something resembling ‘replicability,’ the the resemblance is not all that close.

Most historical writing is, at best, ‘semipublic’….The historian is less like the author of a logical demonstration…more like a witness to what has been found on a voyage of discovery [or in a court room].  And arguments which are illegitimate when addressed to the author of a transparently followable syllogism are quite appropriate in the case of a witness.”[4]

The same author goes on to quote a logic textbook, which tells us: “certain motives weaken our competence and our readiness to observe certain facts or to state them fairly.  Hence the existence of such motives, if such existence can be be proved in any given case, is relevant to determine the credibility of a witness.”[5]

Finally, as I noted before, I think many critics have confused sarcasm, irony and cynicism for ad hominem.  Others seem to feel that these have no place in scholarly pursuits.  I think this is wrong. A bit of well placed sarcasm can be quite effective in the context of an overall argument (conceding the fact that a response that is nothing but sarcasm isn’t very effective).   They can be used to effectively –and colorfully – point out the deficiencies in an argument.  Furthermore, while I make no claim to having read extremely wide-afield, it is my experience that virtually every form of academic writing that I have come into contact with has included sarcasm, irony and cynicism as accepted facets of the form.  To focus on these aspects, and refuse to address or even acknowledge the serious argument being made, is to commit another fallacy: the “style over substance fallacy” (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Style_over_substance_fallacy).  And, critics of the Church commit this fallacy (and others) every time they complain about, say, Dan Peterson’s sense of humor (or lack thereof) without acknowledging the serious argument he is always making.  G.K. Chesterton, a Catholic apologist with a similarly sharp wit, once observed, “Mr. McCabe thinks that I am not serious but only funny, because Mr. McCabe thinks that funny is the opposite of serious. Funny is the opposite of not funny, and of nothing else.”[6]

In fine, looking at relevant aspects of the person making the argument is not a fallacy.  In many aspects it is essential to making an informed judgment of the argument. It’s a matter of relevance. The fact that critics have to stoop to their own invocation of ad hominem and the style before substance fallacy argues that they are ill-equipped to confront the arguments being made.


[1] http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=15&num=2&id=514

 

[2] We call them inmates.

[3] Peter Novick, That Noble Dream: The ‘Objectivity Question’ and the American Historical Profession (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 11-12.

[4] Novick, 219-220, bold added

[5] Morris R. Cohen and Ernest Nagel, An Introduction to Logic and Scientific Method (new York, 1934), 180; cited in Novick, 221.

[6] Gilbert K Chesterton, “On Mr. McCabe and a Divine Frivolity,” Heretics (New York: John Lane company, 1905 [twelfth edition, 1919]).

 

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Mormon FAIR-Cast 94: Gay Mormon Finds Happiness in Church’s Teachings

June 30, 2012 by SteveDensleyJr

https://media.blubrry.com/mormonfaircast/www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Joshua-Johanson-FAIR-Conf-Speaker.mp3

Podcast: Download (21.6MB)

Subscribe: RSS

Joshua Johanson, a scheduled speaker at the 2012 FAIR conference on August 2-3 in Sandy, Utah appeared recently on K-Talk radio to discuss his experience as an active Mormon who experiences same-sex attraction, and who is also happily married to a woman. “Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints can find happiness in following the Church’s teachings against same-sex relationships” said Joshua.

A news article reporting on his interview can be found here. More information on the 2012 FAIR Conference, as well as how to purchase tickets, can be found here.

This recording originally aired on June 27 and is posted here by permission of K-Talk Radio. The opinions expressed in this interview do not necessarily represent the views of FAIR or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Filed Under: Homosexuality, Podcast

Changes at the Maxwell Institute, and “controlling the narrative”

June 23, 2012 by Mike Parker

As many are no doubt aware by now, late last week Daniel C. Peterson was dismissed as editor of the Mormon Studies Review (formerly known as Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, FARMS Review of Books, and FARMS Review, in that order), the flagship journal of the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship at BYU (formerly the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, or “FARMS”).

Dr. Peterson has been the editor of the Review since its inception and first issue in 1989. At that time FARMS was a private foundation that served as a “clearinghouse” for cutting-edge research on the Book of Mormon. It also published works of an apologetic nature, typically reviews of books and other materials that were critical of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

In 1998 FARMS became part of Brigham Young University, gaining some “official” status as part of the Church’s university. Although editorial freedom was promised in this arrangement, over the years there has been increasing tension at the organization between Peterson and others who believed it should defend the Church in print, and university-appointed administrators who did not agree with this approach.

Last week Dr. M. Gerald Bradford, executive director of the Maxwell Institute, fired Peterson as editor of the Review via email while Peterson was out of the country. (As far as I can tell, Peterson retains his position at the Institute as editor-in-chief of the Middle Eastern Texts Initiative.) [Read more…] about Changes at the Maxwell Institute, and “controlling the narrative”

Filed Under: Apologetics, News stories

Review of Stephen Taysom, The Patheos Guide to Mormonism

June 20, 2012 by Kevin Barney

Stephen Taysom, The Patheos Guide to Mormonism (Series Editor Kathleen Mulhern), available in e-book formats for $2.99.  For details, see this website:  http://www.patheos.com/Books/Patheos-Press/The-Patheos-Guide-to-Mormonism.html

Remember when you were in high school, and you were assigned a five-page paper?  Oh, how you struggled to reach that goal of five pages!  If you got desperate enough, perhaps you played with fonts, margins and line spacing in an effort to cross the finish line with some hopefully-not-too-obvious space padding techniques made possible by the computer age.  What a relief it was when you finally achieved the assigned length.  Maybe you would even add an extra paragraph, so it wouldn’t look too obvious how much you were straining to get to five pages of text.

Those were the days, weren’t they?  Stephen Taysom, an Assistant Professor of Religious Studies at Cleveland State University (and a blogger at the Juvenile Instructor http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/), was recently faced with a grown up’s inverse of this problem: He had to try to give a coherent introduction to Mormonism, a very complicated topic, in what has amounted to a mere 77 pages.  I would venture a guess that there were times during his work on this project that he sincerely wished for 500 pages to play with, rather than 77.  But the brevity of the text is a large part of its appeal (and I freely acknowledge I was much more willing to undertake a review of a 77-pager than I would have been the 500-pager), so what must have been a very challenging exercise in pruning had to be undertaken.

Does it work?  I decided before reading it that my standard would be whether I thought I could have done a better job.  It is conceivable that I might have done a better job if I had 500 pages to play with, but it is highly doubtful that I could have improved upon this effort if I were limited to less than 100 pages.  So yes, as a very concise summary of and introduction to Mormonism, especially for those with limited prior exposure to the religion, it does indeed work, and I highly recommend it.

All Patheos Guides follow the same basic structure of five chapters, each with five standardized subsections.  This is done purposefully to allow easy comparison of different religions using the respective Guides for those faiths.  Below is the Table of Contents to the Mormon Guide:

CHAPTER ONE: ORIGINS

Beginnings: First Vision

Influences: Awakening and Restoration

Founders: Smith and Young

Sacred Texts: The Standard Works and an Open Canon

Historical Perspectives: Apologists and Critics

CHAPTER TWO: HISTORY

Early Developments: Mobs, Murder, and Moving West

Schisms and Sects: Challenges to Polygamy

Missions and Expansion: From New York to the World

Exploration and Conquest: Migration, Deseret, and Utah

The Modern Age: A Manifesto and Statehood

CHAPTER THREE: BELIEFS

Sacred Narratives: From Michael to Lehi

Ultimate Reality and Divine Beings: From Man to God

Human Nature and the Purpose of Existence: A Training Ground

Suffering and the Problem of Evil: War in Heaven, Choice on Earth

Afterlife and Salvation: A Hierarchy of Kingdoms

CHAPTER FOUR: RITUALS AND WORSHIP

Sacred Time: From the Second Coming to Eternity

Sacred Space: Chapels and Temples

Rites and Ceremonies: Fathers and Priests

Worship and Devotion in Daily Life: Sacrament, Family, and Temple

Symbolism: Signs of Hope and Promise

CHAPTER FIVE: ETHICS AND COMMUNITY

Community Organization: Wards and Common Care

Leadership: Presidency, Quorums, and Bishops

Principles of Moral Thought and Action: Avoiding Sin and Practicing Charity

Vision for Society: Politics, Protests, and the Apocalypse

Gender and Sexuality: Patriarchy and Heterosexuality

One consequence of this standardized format is a fair amount of duplication, since each chapter needs to stand on its own for comparative purposes with other Guides.  I read the book straight through, like a novel, so the duplicated explanations of things like the First Vision or visits of Moroni stuck out to me.  But that is simply an unavoidable consequence of the desired series structure, and once one gets beyond the early chapters the duplicative material quickly becomes much less common.  (One duplication that was probably unintentional was the repetition of the precise sentence “In addition, Mormons set aside Monday evenings as a period of family togetherness” a mere two paragraphs from each other in the first section of Chapter Four.)

A couple of illustrations will show Taysom’s skill at conveying complex information in a succinct and understandable way.  First is this explanation of the First Vision from the first section of Chapter One:

In 1820, at age 14, his prayer for guidance led to an experience that became the founding event of Mormonism and gave rise to his career as a prophet. In his accounts of this event, recorded many years later, Joseph wrote of being nearly overwhelmed by darkness and then seeing a pillar of light encircling two beings, God the Father and Jesus. He was told that he was forgiven of his sins and that he was not to join any church, since none embodied the true faith; all had gone astray.

Second, from the first section of Chapter Three, is this explanation of the Mormon concept of Jesus Christ as Jehovah:

Mormons take a slightly different approach to some of these stories than many other traditions, however. For example, in the Mormon version of the sacred creation narrative, Jesus Christ, who before his birth was the Jehovah of the Hebrew Bible, created the earth and all things in it at the direction of God the Father. Jehovah was assisted in this by other “noble and great” spirits, most notably the angel Michael. Michael, according to the Mormon narrative, was born on earth as Adam, the first mortal man.

Taysom has skillfully conveyed the gist of these ideas, which normally would require pages of explanation, in but a single paragraph each.

I liked the way Taysom put the origins of Mormonism into the broader religious context of the Second Great Awakening, and the specific revivalism of the burned over district.  I also appreciated how he easily and straightforwardly broached topics that some might consider controversial, such as treasure searching.  For instance, see how he discloses post-Manifesto polygamy in a very just-the-facts-ma’am, matter of fact way: “After years of attempting to establish their constitutional right to practice polygamy, the Mormons finally disavowed the practice in 1890, although it would continue to be practiced in some quarters until the second decade of the 20th century.”  Now, that wasn’t so hard, was it?

I personally have an interest in Joseph Smith’s use of Hebrew, and twice Taysom seems to reflect a certain doubt as to whether Joseph’s explanation of the origin of the place name Nauvoo as a Hebrew word was really correct.  (The applicable quotations are as follows: “named Nauvoo [after the Hebrew word for beautiful, he claimed]” and “Joseph Smith re-christened the town Nauvoo, which Smith suggested was a Hebrew name denoting a place of rest or refreshing.”)  This was not merely a claim or suggestion of the Prophet, but a demonstrable fact.  It is true that the word nauvoo is obscure, and if you ask your Hebrew-speaking friend what the Hebrew word for “beautiful” is, he surely will not say nauvoo.  But although the word is rare, it is also quite real.  In the beginning of Isaiah 52:7, “How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings,” the Hebrew word rendered “beautiful” is (in modern transliteration) na’wu, the pilel form of the verb na’ah.  Joseph gives the word as nauvoo, using the Sephardic transliteration method he learned at the Kirtland Hebrew School, where au represents the vowel qamets, the v is the letter waw, and the oo represents the vowel shureq.  Indeed, the word nauvoo actually appears on p. 28 of the Joshua Seixas grammar that was used at the Kirtland Hebrew School, as one can see at this page:  http://www.fairlds.org/authors/barney-kevin/is-nauvoo-a-hebrew-word .

Near the end of Chapter Two we read “In 2008, Mitt Romney became the first Mormon contender for the presidential nomination for a major political party,” but as written that cannot be correct, since Mitt’s own father, George, preceded him as a one-time contender for the Republican nomination.

The very tight space requirements do not allow much space for a discussion of nuance or development of Mormon ideas over time.  In the section on Ultimate Reality and Divine Beings: From Man to God, Taysom simply assumes the B.H. Roberts tripartite theory of the nature of man (intelligence, soul, body).  Now, if I were in his shoes I would have done the same thing, as to my eye that is the most common understanding today, but it is not something that has been universally held throughout the history of the Church.  I think it is proper to use things like this that historically have been majority views, but I do lament the lack of space for putting these ideas into a little bit more context in terms of their development over time.

Taysom is very careful not to overwhelm the reader with in-house vocabulary that a non-Mormon would not understand, which is I think absolutely essential in a project such as this.  One small lapse in this area was in his discussion of tithing:  “Mormons also pay 10 percent of their annual ‘increase’ as tithing to the Church.”  He put the word increase in quotation marks, but gives the reader no clue what it means.  Something like a bracketed “i.e., income” would have been helpful here.  But in the context of the book as a whole, these things are mere trifles.

Believe it or not, I actually had a dream about the first section of Chapter Four, in which Mormon worship services are described.  (How is that for my commitment as a book reviewer!)  In the dream, I was serving a mission to the Philippines (doubtless because my former bishop’s son just received his own call to that area).  I realized that we were asking people to come to Church, but we weren’t explaining to them carefully what they could expect to happen there, and no one wants to go into a strange situation without a sense of what to expect.  As they say, “If ye are prepared, ye shall not fear.”  So my companion and I put together a pamphlet that we had printed, that included our pictures, something about us such as where we’re from, and how to contact us.  We also put in there a picture of the local ward building, both external and internal maps, times of the different services, and then we actually explained what they could expect to happen in, say, sacrament meeting, much along the lines of Taysom’s own explanation.  (For instance, we should explain that there is no offertory; one simply cannot assume that people will know about something like that.)  I think we also threw some of our basic beliefs in there, maybe a copy of the Articles of Faith.  And of course we had great missionary success based on our little pamphlet (I did say it was a dream, didn’t I?).

In this current Mormon Moment, when college students are taking classes in Mormonism, journalists are struggling to wrap their arms around the faith, ordinary voters are trying to figure out what it all means for their voting decision, and on and on, this book is just what the doctor ordered to give people a much needed overview of what Mormonism is all about.  I congratulate Professor Taysom on a job well done, and hope the book receives a wide audience.

Filed Under: Book reviews

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 169
  • Page 170
  • Page 171
  • Page 172
  • Page 173
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 207
  • Go to Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Faithful Study Resources for Come, Follow Me

Subscribe to Blog

Enter your email address:

Subscribe to Podcast

Podcast icon
Subscribe to podcast in iTunes
Subscribe to podcast elsewhere
Listen with FAIR app
Android app on Google Play Download on the App Store

Pages

  • Blog Guidelines

FAIR Latest

  • Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Genesis 24–33 – Part 1 – Autumn Dickson
  • That All May Be Edified
  • Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Genesis 18–23 – Part 2 – Autumn Dickson
  • What Does It Mean to “Live after the Manner of Happiness”?
  • Why Should I Watch General Conference?

Blog Categories

Recent Comments

  • Antonio Moreno on Forsake Not Your Own Mercy
  • Wayne on Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Genesis 12–17; Abraham 1–2 – Part 1 – Autumn Dickson
  • Tanya Alltop on Be Reconciled to God 
  • Darci Larson on Adorned with the Virtue of Temperance
  • Kathleen Chin on Forsake Not Your Own Mercy

Archives

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • iTunes
  • YouTube
Android app on Google Play Download on the App Store

Footer

FairMormon Logo

FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Donate to FAIR

We are a volunteer organization. We invite you to give back.

Donate Now

Site Footer