I have no intention of explaining how the
correspondence which I now offer to the public fell into my hands.
- C. S. Lewis
Church Handbook of Instructions:
Guidelines for Apologists.
Brethren,
Among the issues affecting the modern Church,
foremost in the minds of the 15 and their advisors is the problem of
disaffection. Although the numbers on the books have been climbing rapidly, the
numbers of active practicing members has remained stagnant since the early
1980’s. As former official Church Historian Marlin K Jensen (Jensen, 2012) has
pointed out, there has not been a disenfranchisement of this magnitude since
the Prophet Joseph’s banking scam of 1837. The leadership is concerned: the
Church is stagnant; the members are revolting.
Consequently, as apologists, your audience is not
the critic of the Church, your role is to APPEAR to engage the critic. The
target audience, however, is the faithful tithe payer (hereafter referred to
with more colloquial terms like “member” or “believer”) of the Church.
This cannot be overemphasized. This is your sine
qua non. The role of the apologist to create the illusion, for the benefit
of the faithful member, that the Church is responding to its critics. If the
apologists does his job correctly, the faithful member will not feel the need
to further explore criticisms of the Church.
Further light and knowledge regarding the role of
the apologist may be derived from the inspired words of our recent and current
(capitalized) Brethren.
Shortly before becoming the Prophet Seer and
Revelator for the Church, Ezra Taft Benson (found in Anderson, 1993) said that
you, as academics, must “always defend the faith…” and are to NEVER “humanize
the prophets of God.” He equated historical accuracy with “slander and
defamation.”
Elder Dallin H. Oaks (in Anderson, 1999),
approvingly alludes to respected LDS intellectual Hugh Nibley’s quoting of
early Christian Father St. Augustine, suggesting that there is a very ancient
tradition of covering up any information that could be perceived as damaging to
the Church. Augustine says that “[i]t is permitted for the purpose of
building up religion in things pertaining to piety, when
necessary, to conceal whatever appears to need concealing.”
Oaks elaborates that
[m]y duty as a member of the Council of the Twelve is to protect what is most unique about the LDS church, namely the authority of priesthood, testimony regarding the restoration of the gospel, and the divine mission of the Savior. Everything may be sacrificed in order to maintain the integrity of those essential facts. Thus, if [a critical work] reveals information that is detrimental to the reputation of Joseph Smith, then it is necessary to try to limit its influence and that of its authors.
Oaks (1985) also quotes Elder George F. Richards,
former President of the Council of the Twelve: “when we say anything bad
about the leaders of the Church, whether true or false, we tend to
impair their influence and their usefulness and are thus working against the
Lord and his cause,” and Elder Oaks is careful to reiterate that “it
does not matter that the criticism is true.”
Elder Boyd K. Packer, in his masterful (1981) talk
to the Church Educational System instructs you explicitly to not be neutral or
objective, because objectivity benefits Satan. “In the Church we
are not neutral. We are one-sided.” The role of educators of the faith is not
to deliver an objective history because “[i]n an effort to be objective,
impartial, and scholarly a writer or a teacher may unwittingly be giving equal
time to the adversary.” No, instead of historical facts, the aim in teaching
the history of the LDS faith “should be that they [students] will see the hand
of the Lord in every hour and every moment of the Church from its beginning
till now.” To achieve this goal, instructors must keep in mind that, according
to Elder Packer “[s]ome things that are true are not very useful,” and
that “[y]ou do not do well to see that it is disseminated” because unvarnished
truth about the history of the Church is like a disease: “Do not spread
disease germs!"
Having feasted upon the inspired and inspiring
words of our beloved Apostles and Prophets, we are able to distill a mission
statement for our faith’s apologists.
Apologist Mission Statement
As a defender of the faith, the apologist does not
necessarily directly engage the critic of the Church, but creates the illusion,
for the benefit of the faithful, that the Church is actively responding to
criticism. In so doing, the apologist is to convince the believer that there is
no such thing as legitimate criticism, thus quelling any and all interest in
pursuing further investigation of legitimate criticism of the faith. The
apologist will seek to limit the influence of the authors of any work that objectively
evaluates the history and theology of the faith. Any objective criticism is
slanderous, is un-useful, and even if true, benefits Satan. Hence the apologist
is to sacrifice anything, including but not limited to, neutrality and
objectivity, in order to eradicate the disease of legitimate criticism of the
Church.
With the above Apologist Mission Statement as our
rubric, there are specific principles to follow in order to achieve your
apologetic aim.
Principle 1
Avoid directly engaging critics.
Why?
Legitimate academics, if they are doing their jobs
with intellectual honesty, look at evidence, look at data, follow the arguments and evidence
wherever it leads, and then extrapolate conclusions from said evidence.
As apologists, if you are righteously fulfilling
your duty, you do the opposite. You already know what your conclusions will be
before you begin to even consider any evidence[i].
It is your duty to interpret the data and evidence in such a manner as to
ensure that it appears to conform to the conclusions that paint the Church in
the most favorable light.
Because your primary audience is the faithful
member, you do your best avoid direct entanglement with legitimate critics
because you do not want the faithful member to notice that the critic and the
apologist are engaged in wholly incommensurate pursuits.
Principle 2
Never allow for the possibility that there is
legitimate criticism.
Never distinguish between reasonable criticism and
“anti-mormon lies.” As soon as such a distinction is drawn, it allows for the
possibility of legitimate criticism, and such a possibility must never be
allowed in the vicinity of the realm of possibilities in the mind of the
believer.
Note: Principle 10 will be related to principle 2
in that it holds that the apologist must never distinguish between objective
truth seekers and ostensible “enemies of the Church.”
Principle 3
Dismiss everything as “typical” anti-mormon
tactics.
It doesn’t matter if criticisms are offered in
polar opposite fashions, label them and dismiss any and all criticisms as
“typical” anti-mormon tactics. If, for example, a criticism is published
anonymously, then describe it as “typical anti-mormon tactics—hiding behind
anonymity;” if an author does the opposite and puts his or her name to the
work, dismiss it as “typical anti-mormon tactics—looking for attention.”
If a critic offers a brief criticism, dismiss is as
“typical anti-mormon tactics—not focusing on the bigger picture; taking things
out of context.” If, however, the critic offers a larger criticism (eg. CES
Letter), dismiss with something akin to “typical anti-mormon tactics—laundry
list of criticisms meant to bamboozle the reader.” Or on the other other hand, if the
critique offers a deep analytical criticism (eg Deconstructing Mormonism),
dismiss it as “typical anti-mormon tactics—always focusing on the minutia,
ignoring the simple message.”
Stylistic note regarding tone: the reader should
almost be able to hear you let out an exasperated sigh each time they read your
words “typical anti-mormon tactics.”
Principle 4
Always act as though the criticism is old and has
been previously satisfactorily dispatched.
There are two significant benefits in following
this tack. First, it will create the impression in the faithful reader that the
critic of the Church cannot come up with anything new, that the critic is
desperate, is dishonest, and is willfully ignorant of the truth. Secondly, it
allows the apologist to avoid giving an actual response with a dismissive wave
of his hand. The apologist will not have to offer a proper response to the
criticism because, at least as the faithful believer is led to believe, it has
already been satisfactorily answered.
Because, as per Principle 5, the faithful member is
motivated to protect his or her faith, and therefore motivated to accept
whatever you say relatively uncritically and at face value, you may even offer
references to prior apologetic works, even if they do not offer a satisfactory
response to the criticism. The faithful reader will typically not follow up with your
references.
Principle 5
Take advantage of the Confirmation Bias; Hold
different standards of evidence.
“It is the peculiar and perpetual error of the
human understanding to be more moved and excited by affirmatives than by
negatives." --Sir Francis Bacon
Remember that your target readers, being faithful members, are motivated to believe. As believers, they will be inclined to uncritically accept information that confirms what they already believe, and at the same be inclined to critically dismiss that which implies that they have been mistaken. This is the Confirmation Bias, it is a basic psychological mechanism, and the apologist can use it to his benefit. If you hold to different standards of evidence, you are not going to be called out for it, as long as you endeavor to restrict your primary audience to those motivated to remain faithful.
Therefore, in your apologetic efforts, anything
that is faith promoting is to be accepted by you (and by extension by your
readers) and promulgated uncritically; anything that is faith demoting is to be
criticized indefatigably.
For example, if a piece of pottery is found in the
Middle East that contains 3 consonants that are found in a place name mentioned in
the Book of Mormon, that may be be paraded as evidence for the authenticity of
the Book. However, when not a single item of evidence is found for purported
Book of Mormon battles where hundreds of thousands (even millions) of men,
women, and children were killed, at a specific named location, while using
steel weaponry, offer hypothetical explanations as to why the evidence is not
there, pretend they are reasonable answers, and sum it up with a pithy “absence
of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
Similarly, anytime a leader of another faith says
something complementary about the Church, even if their faith is an abomination
in the sight of our Lord, and they are (according to the pre-1990 Temple
ritual) in the employ of Satan, accept it at face value. On the other hand,
anything critical of the Church said by the leader of another faith is to be
analyzed away and dismissed as a misunderstanding. And if it is not a
misunderstanding, question their motivations: “Enemies of the Church have
always attacked us by…”
Principle 5a
Hold a double standard regarding offering context.
If a critic makes an error regarding a passage
because he or she has missed the context, do not let it go discussed, as this
implies, in the mind of the faithful reader, ignorance, intellectual laziness,
or worse, dishonesty on the part of the critic. A fairly common example is that
critics will cite 2nd Nephi 5: 21-23, a passage in which God
curses some of the recently arrived Israelite settlers with “a skin of
blackness…like unto flint.” Sometimes critics mistakenly point to this passage
and link it to the Church’s historic racist denial of exaltation
to those of African ancestry. And while the above passage is racist, and the
Church has a history of racism against Africans, the racism in the Book of
Mormon passage is independent of the institutional racism of the Church.
However, ignoring the context can work to the
benefit of the apologist.
A shining example is found in the anonymously
authored essay regarding Joseph Smith’s illegal plural “marriages” buried on
the Church’s website. In the essay, the anonymous author discusses the Prophet
Joseph’s “marriage” to Apostle Heber C. Kimball’s little girl Helen Mar Kimball
in barter for guaranteed reserved spots in heaven for the Kimball family. The
author leads the faithful reader to infer that the 37 year old Prophet’s
“marriage” to 14 year old Helen was non-sexual by stating that “Helen Mar Kimball
spoke of her sealing to Joseph as ‘for eternity alone.’” However, the context[Please see the endnotes ii] in
which the phrase “for eternity alone” appears clearly indicates her
disappointment that her childhood “marriage” to the 37 year old prophet was
most emphatically not “for eternity alone.”
Principle 6
Avoid references and hyperlinks to critical works.
This one is simple. The majority of your apologetic
efforts are now focused online. Do not include hyperlinks to criticisms of the
Church. It makes it too easy for the faithful member to access information that
contradicts the current version of our history and theology that we have
constructed for their benefit. Our critics will provide links to your
apologetic efforts, but, as per your mission statement, the critic is not the
target audience of your efforts, so you are not to be drawn into a urinating
contest.
Including hyperlinks to criticisms would be, in
Elder Packer’s terminology, “giving equal time to the adversary.” Offering a
hyperlink might lead the faithful reader to make the unwarranted inference that
you, the apologist, would approve of the member clicking on the link, thus
seeing unfiltered information for themselves.
Principle 7
Imply that individual errors are representative of
the work as a whole.
Critical works are going to contain errors, as are
apologetic works. To err is human. The apologist can create the impression in
the reader that a work is full of errors by making an ambiguous statement like
“the author makes mistakes like mistake A, mistake B, and
mistake C.” Without actually saying that the work is full of similar errors,
you have left room for the faithful member to draw that conclusion for his or
her self.
Principle 8
Authoritative tone, NOT authoritative answers
Obviously, if the leadership of the Church (and
their advisors) had any sincere interest in offering legitimate and
authoritative answers to the flood of criticisms that are drowning the Church,
then the Brethren, even the Prophets and Apostles, who have a direct
communication channel to God, would do so at every opportunity.
In lieu of any sincere interest in resolving the
issues, the mantle falls upon you (non capitalized) brethren.
The future may hold as yet unforeseen creative
resolutions to the issues, political or economic pressure to catch up to
societal norms, proper revelations, and the subtle and gradual mainstreaming is ongoing.
The apologist must always hedge his bets against such contingencies. As such,
he ought to speak and write in an authoritative tone, but must do so without
actually stating that he is offering a correct or even best answer, and must
never imply that his apologetic efforts are the official doctrines or positions
of the Church.
Note. You may imply that there are clearly stated
and official doctrines and positions of the Church, but must never try to
explicitly state what they are.
The Brethren have learned, through frustrating
experience after frustrating experience, that things that sounded reasonable to
a prophet or apostle at one time might not sound so reasonable at a later date.
This necessitates the Church’s corps of apologists in two ways. First, the
apologists are needed to “explain away” the gaffs and nonsense spoken by
previous inspired leaders. Second, the Brethren are now entirely silent on all
substantive issues, any and all discussion of meaty theological and historical
matters is left to the apologists. In the future, there will be no risk of
needing to backtrack on something said by the Brethren; but if there is a need
to backtrack on something said by an apologist it just doesn’t
matter—apologists don’t offer official doctrines or policies.
Principle 9
Liberal use of ad hoc assumptions and the ad
ignorantium
9a
Ad Hoc Assumptions
When a paradigm or theory or hypothesis is in
danger of being rejected, it is often possible to save it, at least
temporarily, by postulating ad hoc assumptions.
An ad hoc assumption is a statement that is not
necessarily warranted by any evidence or reason, but is posited because, *if it
were true*, it would *explain away* a problem threatening the theory or
hypothesis.
(For example, “phlogiston” was, for a long time,
theorized to be a material contained in all combustible materials, released
upon burning or rusting. If, upon burning, phlogiston is expelled, it stands to
reason that the mass of the burned object ought to decrease. This was not
always the case, as some metals increase in mass after burning. Some defenders
of phlogiston theory added an ad hoc assumption that phlogiston could have
negative mass.
A second example of an ad hoc assumption comes from
physics. Sound travels in waves, and the sound waves occur in the medium of
air, water, etc. Light is apparently a wave, so a natural question to ask is
how these waves travel through apparently empty space? What is the medium
through which light waves are propagated? 19th century answer:
space is not really empty, but filled with the “luminiferous aether.”
The aether presented theoretical puzzles: it had to
allow objects to pass without drag, it had to fill every nook and cranny of
space; and it had to support the high frequencies of light waves. So ad hoc
assumptions were postulated—luminiferous aether is, at the same time, massless,
fluid, and it’s solidity millions of times more rigid than steel.)
The apologist can use ad hoc assumptions to save
whatever hypothesis he is defending.
No horses in the Americas during the Book of Mormon
timeframe? No problem, ad an ad hoc assumption that maybe anytime the Book of
Mormon mentions horses, it is actually referring to tapirs.
Even though Joseph Smith is a mouthpiece for God,
he talked some utter nonsense like believing in moon men. No problem, ad hoc
assumption to the rescue—sometimes prophets are speaking as men.
History of denying exaltation to our African brothers and sisters? No big
thing. Ad a handy ad hoc assumption that it was all due to folklore and was
just a policy, not a doctrine.
You might notice that in the history of scientific
ideas ad hoc assumptions start to get tacked on to a theory just before it is
replaced by a new, more explanatory, more predictive way of looking at the
world. Because our body of knowledge is inspired of God, eternal and
unchanging, we shall confidently presume that even though our cherished set of
truths require ad hoc assumptions, a similar fate is not about to befall our
faith.
9b
The Ad Ignorantiam
Broadly speaking, when refuting a claim, one may
make a strong refutation or a weak refutation. If making a strong refutation,
then one has shown a claim to be false. If making a weak refutation, then one
simply shown that the claim may not be justified.
The ad ignorantiam conflates these two sorts of
refutations by drawing a strong conclusion from weak premisses. It leads one to
mistake a weak refutation for a strong one. Premiss: you don’t know it’s not
true; inference: it is true. If I believe in UFO’s for example, and you try to
convince me that I am mistaken, I could argue along the lines of “well you
can’t prove that they don’t exist,” and from that weak premiss make the strong
inference that UFO’s do exist.
You can use this logical fallacy to your benefit.
A critic offers an argument against a principle of our faith or an item in our history.
The apologist then shows that the critics argument *might* be wrong. The
apologist DOES NOT follow this up with a positive argument for the proposition.
He simply acts as though his “might be wrong” answer is a satisfactory answer.
Critics have correctly pointed out that there has
never been a shred of evidence of horses, wheels nor of chariots in any of the proposed
Book of Mormon locations. The Book of Mormon must be mistaken, the critic
contends, because there were clearly no chariots for the horses to pull. No
fear. Simply add on a handy ad hoc assumption[iii]—horses
and chariots are the equivalent of chicken and backpacks, then act as though
that criticism has been answered.
In sum: offer a potential hypothetical explanation
(“if you look at it in this light, from the corner of your eye, squint, and
hold it at this angle…”), then act as though the criticism has been
satisfactorily and conclusively debunked.
Principle 10
You are the closet thing we have to modern day
Danites.
To reiterate, the central aim of the apologist is
to limit the influence of legitimate critics, especially those that have left
the fold, on the faithful member.
We have no 21st Century equivalent
of an Orin Porter Rockwell or a Wild Bill Hickman. In modern times it is simply
not feasible to send out Danites to take out the enemies of righteousness. As
long as we remain constrained to operate within such limitations it is essential
that the apologist use his influence to ensure that the true believer is
motivated to ignore, or even actively avoid, the works of critics and
apostates. Consequently, your “Danite” duty as an apologist is character
assassination.
Many of the above principles will count as
“smearing the author.” By describing everything as “typical” “anti Mormon”
“lies” and describing any and all critics as “enemies” of the Church, you are
already casting aspersions in the direction of the critic.
In order to lead the faithful member to conclude
that critics and apostates are to be actively avoided it is instructive to
consider the processes through which we are converted to the gospel.
It is certainly a rare individual that is converted
by considering the evidence for the foundational claims of the Church; there
are far more effective conversion tools than mere information and reason. Many
join because they are “friendshipped” into the Church. Or, we take advantage of
the basic psychological trait of cognitive dissonance by developing a testimony
by pretending to have a testimony (Packer, 1983), or acting as
though we already believe it (Alma 32: 28-34), and trying really really really
hard to believe (Alma 32: 38-39, Mormon 9: 21, Moroni 10: 3-5).
The above are consequently where the faithful
member implicitly assumes beliefs come from. You can use this to your advantage
by stating or implying that a lack or loss of belief comes from the opposite of
the above belief formation processes.
If people convert to the church because they are
friendshipped into the Church, then it stands to reason that they leave the
church because of the opposite of friendshipping. The apologist can imply or
state that the apostate must have been “offended.”
If members believe that a belief forms because
individuals make an effort to believe, it follows that apostasy must result
from a lack of effort (Alma 32: 38-39, Mormon 9: 21, Moroni 10: 3-5). The
apologist can state or insinuate that the ex-believer is less effortful in
their faith than the true believer, and that disbelief is a moral weakness.
Believing without of doubt is virtuous, and the key
to unlocking access to God (Alma 32: 40-41; Ether 3: 19-28). If someone is an
ex-believer, never allow for the possibility that they have drawn a reasoned
conclusion. Suggest that a lack of belief reflects not upon the Church, but always upon the
apostates’ lack of virtue. If a testimony develops because ones actions accord with gospel principles, then presumably testimony is dissolved when ones
actions are contrary to gospel principles. The apologists can, therefore, tell
the faithful that the apostate left because they were sinning. In the absence
of evidence of actual sin, the apologist can assert with confidence that the
ex-believer is “hiding a secret sin” because, as Brigham Young (Chapter 12:
Preventing Personal Apostasy, Teachings of Presidents of the Church) instructs:
“…no person ever apostatized, without actual transgression.”
You ought to have no compunction regarding the harm
you might cause to family relations, nor to the reputation of the critic. As
explained by the Prophet Joseph, if a formerly faithful member has left the
fold, he is under the control of Satan (Chapter 27 of the Church lesson manual,
Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith):
[N]otwithstanding all the professed determination to live godly, apostates after turning from the faith of Christ, unless they have speedily repented, have sooner or later fallen into the snares of the wicked one.
When you joined this Church you enlisted to serve God. When you did that you left the neutral ground, and you never can get back on to it. Should you forsake the Master you enlisted to serve, it will be by the instigation of the evil one, and you will follow his dictation and be his servant.
Since many of the critics of the Church are
ex-believers, and so are servants of Satan, the apologist ought not hesitate to
question the apostates’ motives, intellect, or virtue.
Important: Even though the apologists is assaying
to convince the believer that his or her ex-believer family and friends are
controlled by Satan, the apologist will assiduously avoid making any reference
to “shunning.”
To paraphrase the most correct book on Earth (1st Nephi
4:13): It is better that one man’s reputation, career, and family relationships
should perish than that the Church should dwindle and perish in unbelief.
Remember, according to Elder Oaks, “Everything
may be sacrificed in order to maintain the integrity of [the] essential
facts” of the Church, and you are duty bound to try to limit the influence
of the authors of critical works, even if those works are accurate and true, in
order to conceal what needs concealing, if it reveals information that is
detrimental to the Church.
Conceal critical information. Limit the influence
of critical authors. Everything may be sacrificed. Everything. Interpret, dear
apologist, as you will.
When it comes to apostates, the Brethren will very
often have your back. The Apostles will direct Stake Presidents and Bishops to
excommunicate former believers who start to gain an audience for their
critiques of the Church. If someone has the audacity to reveal the truth about
something that, in Elder Oaks’ terms, needs concealing, the Priesthood can act
on our Lord’s behalf and bar them for eternity from the presence of God. Think
September Six, Quinn, and the plethora of recent gadflies who have been so eternally
damned by their local and untrained leaders.
There are, however, two provisos regarding
disciplinary actions.
First, the Church will always claim that
disciplinary action is instigated at the local level, and that any disciplinary
decisions are not influenced by the General Authorities of the Church. The
apologist must ensure that the believers accept this, and, so to speak, pay no
attention to the man behind the curtain.
Second, the Brethren generally will not take
disciplinary action against those who have received their Second Anointing.
Principle 11
When the critic is proved right…
As the recent essays have demonstrated, the
information that was previously dismissed by defenders of the Church as
“anti-mormon lies” has turned out to be overwhelmingly true. So how ought the
apologist respond when it is discovered that previous apologetic efforts were
mistaken, misguided, or misleading?
11a
Silence.
It is best to never admit that previous apologetics
were wrong. By maintaining silence on the issue, the apologetic community can
convey the impression that the Church’s message has been consistent through its
history, and that the apologists are simply responding to the same
“anti-mormon” lies over and over again.
If backed into a corner, the Church, via its
Newsroom, might say something like it disavows the racist views of previous
members, but will do so without acknowledging that it was prophets and apostles
teaching those views, in an official capacity, from the pulpit.
11b
Blame the members Version 1.
How are leaders and apologists to act when new
information comes to light, or when information previously downplayed becomes
difficult to suppress?
Consider the (October 2015) Ensign article on
Joseph Smith’s seer stones and hat. Although this (embarrassing) information
was not previously widely disseminated nor discussed, the Ensign article
creates the impression that there is nothing surprising in the story, and that
there is nothing startling or shocking about burying ones face in a hat to read
magic stones. By not acknowledging any element of surprise, the articles leads
to faithful reader to presume that they (the reader) ought to have known about
the rock in the hat all along, and that everybody else must have known, thus
applying a subtle psychological peer pressure to be accepting of the
revelation.
Under no circumstances is the apologist to admit to
being surprised by new criticisms or new information.
Furthermore, the apologist ought to state that he
has known about the issue at hand for a long time. When a member first
discovers the rocks in the hat, the child brides, the marrying of other men’s
wives, or the irreconcilable versions of the First Vision, we try to lead the
members to be judgmental towards themselves, to infer that the shock they feel
is their own fault for not being well read enough in Church matters.
11c
Blame the members Version 2.
We have another little used tactic in our arsenal.
There have clearly been times when Prophets and Apostles have talked
unqualified ridiculousness. They taught, from the pulpit, in their official
capacities, a myriad of things that the later leadership has had to disavow.
Follow this logic:
A prophet is sometimes speaking the mind and will
of God, but more often than not he is offering personal views, speaking as a
man, or engaging in speculative theology. However, each of these will occur in
the same speaker, and in the same venues, from the same pulpits, during the
same events. The speaker is only speaking ex cathedra, as it were,
when moved upon by the Holy Ghost, under which circumstances, they are speaking
scripture (D&C 68: 4).
As you know, there has not been an explicitly “thus
sayeth the Lord” revelation since [note to editors, please identify if there
has been a “thus sayeth the Lord” revelation in the last 100 years]. However,
explicitly stating that a revelation is a revelation is unnecessary. When
President Benson (1981) knew he would shortly become the next prophet, he
instructed the members on how to be properly obedient to the prophet:
Sixth: The prophet does not have
to say “Thus saith the Lord” to give us scripture.
Sometimes there are those who argue about words.
They might say the prophet gave us counsel but that we are not obliged to
follow it unless he says it is a commandment. But the Lord says of the Prophet,
“Thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give
unto you.” (D&C
21:4.)
Said Brigham Young, “I have never yet preached a
sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call
scripture.” (Journal of Discourses, 13:95.)
(Stylistic reminder: Whenever a critic refers
to the above quote from Brigham Young, the apologist will accuse the critic of
taking it out of context.)
So. A Prophet is sometimes speaking scripture, but
normally not. There are no indicators in the proceedings, nothing in the
occasion, and according to President Benson, there are no textual clues to
indicate when the prophet is speaking ex cathedra. There is literally no way to
know if the Prophet is speaking scripture, speculating, or spouting platitudes.
Or is there? Consider the following insights from
President Brigham Young:
What a pity it would be if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually. Journal of Discourses 9:150.
I do not wish any Latter-day Saint in this world, nor in heaven, to be satisfied with anything I do, unless the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, the spirit of revelation, makes them satisfied. I wish them to know for themselves and understand for themselves, for this would strengthen the faith that is within them. Journal of Discourses 3:45
President J Rueben Clark (1954) adds
How shall we know when the things they have spoken were said as they were ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost?
I have given some thought to this question, and the answer thereto so far as I can determine, is: We can tell when the speakers are ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost’ only when we, ourselves, are ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost.
In a way, this completely shifts the responsibility from them to us to determine when they so speak.
(Presuming Presidents Young and Clark were not
speaking as men at the above occasions) it is not the responsibility of
our Prophets and Apostles to distinguish when they are speaking the mind and
will of our Lord from situations in which they are speaking as a man, that
responsibility rests upon individuals in the membership of the Church.
This means that when the Prophet says something
that is repudiated[iv] by
subsequent leaders of the Church, if the membership believes it, the fault lies
with the membership for believing it, not in the prophet for teaching it.
Case in point: Brigham Young clearly and repeatedly
taught, from the pulpit, in his capacity as prophet, the principle of Blood
Atonement, that
[t]here are sins that men commit for which they
cannot receive forgiveness in this world, or in that which
is to come, and if they had their eyes open to see their true condition, they
would be perfectly willing to have their blood spilt upon the ground… if
such is not the case, they will stick to them and remain upon them in the
spirit world. (Sermon given September 21, 1856; printed in Deseret News)
President Young justified such action as an act of
love:
This is loving our neighbor as ourselves; if he needs help, help him; and if he wants salvation and it is necessary to spill his blood on the earth in order that he may be saved, spill it....if you have sinned a sin requiring the shedding of blood, except the sin unto death, would not be satisfied nor rest until your blood should be spilled, that you might gain that salvation you desire. That is the way to love mankind. (Sermon given Febuary 8, 1857; printed in Deseret News, Feb 18).
President Young taught it, and there is evidence that members believed and practiced it. The apologetic response to this is not find fault with the prophet for teaching it, but, according to the Church’s apologetic FAIR website, to fault the members for believing it: "…in spite of extreme statements by some of its leaders the church did not officially condone taking life other than through legal processes…responsibility for any reversions to primitive practices of blood shedding must rest upon fanatical individuals." (http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_doctrine/Repudiated_concepts/Blood_atonement, Larson, 1958).
Principle 12
Don’t offer a “crisis of faith
by proxy”
There has been trend by amateur defenders of the
faith to simulate a faith crisis. As prima facie attractive as
this might appear, the apologist ought to avoid this ploy.
Why might one be tempted to fake a faith crisis?
First, it might create, in the mind of the reader,
the impression of intellectual honesty and objectivity on the part of the
defender. A reader might fall for the tactic by accepting that if the
defender’s faith has been even temporarily shaken, then the defender must not
be operating according to predetermined conclusions.
Second, it might create a brief but compelling
narrative, allowing the reader to empathize with the defender of the faith. As
the reader experiences greater empathy, they might be more impressed by the
faithful resolution of the crisis, might be more likely to accept the proposed
solutions to the crisis, and might feel that they have, to some small extent,
gone through the crisis themselves. Hence the term “faith crisis by proxy.”
However, the potential harms of the faith crisis by
proxy outweigh the potential benefits.
The Church tries very hard to maintain the
impression that doubt (in the current leaders, in the most current revisions of our history, and in the most recent reconstructions of our doctrines), as
discussed above under Principle 10, is a sign of moral weakness and of the
devil. We do not want the faithful membership to consider even the possibility
that doubt is at all acceptable. So the apologist must not offer a role model
of acceptable doubt in the form of a faith crisis, even one that is faithfully resolved.
And as per Principle 11b “Under no circumstances is
the apologist to admit to being surprised by new criticisms or new
information.” Remember that the impression that is to be conveyed to the
faithful member is that the critic is continually rehashing the same old
anti-mormon nonsense. If the apologist allows for the possibility of a faith
crisis, it pierces the façade maintained with his brother apologists that the
critic cannot present anything new.
The crisis triggered by the critique adds
legitimacy to the arguments presented by the critic. If the criticisms can
cause the faithful apologist to doubt, albeit temporarily, then the criticism
surely must carry weight. It matters not one jot or tittle that the crisis was
a fabricated rhetorical calculation, because the faithful reader typically
accepts everything from the apologist at face value.
Principle 13
Never acknowledge the wider
implications of your apologetic rhetoric.
It is best for the apologist
to consider criticisms in isolation. If the faithful member were to notice that
one apologetic argument contradicts another, that an apologetic defense
contradicts a doctrine, or that a defense has some other negative implications,
it would defeat the purpose of our apologetic efforts.
Because the prophet Joseph
“married” girls that were younger than the early 19th century
average age of puberty, and he “married” women who were already married to
living men, apologists have floated the idea that (some of? many of?) the
prophet’s “marriages” were non-sexual. We do not want members to notice that
these allegedly non-sexual “marriages” violated the conditions explicitly
spelled out by our Lord Himself in D&C 132, that the purpose of plural
“marriage” is producing babies
One of the most useful weapons
in the apologetic arsenal is the “speaking as a man” archetype. We have gotten
a lot of mileage out of various combinations and permutations on that theme.
However, there are implications to the “speaking as a man” concept that the
faithful members ought to be shielded from. When speaking as moved upon by the
Holy Ghost, the Brethren are speaking scripture. When not, when speaking as a
man, they are essentially offering their own philosophies. Ipso facto,
when relying on the “speaking as a man” defense, we are conceding that the LDS
faith is made up of the philosophies of men, mingled with scripture.
Furthermore, if the leaders refuse to offer any verbal or textual “thus sayeth
the Lord” type indicators of when they are speaking scripture and when they are
not, there is literally no way to determine when a prophet is speaking as a
prophet, thus negating the value of the prophet. These are things we cannot
allow the faithful membership of the Church to notice.
One more example will suffice
to illustrate the point.
In light of DNA studies and
archeology, apologists have reconstructed the narrative of the Book of Mormon.
In the newest interpolation imposed on the Book, middle eastern settlers arrive
in the already populous Americas. Now, according to our theology, Adam and
Eve’s garden of Eden was literally in Missouri some 6000 years ago, and humans
migrated away from the Americas to Eurasia via Noah’s ark during a literal
world wide flood, some 4000 years ago.
If we accept the
reconstructed narrative, and the current DNA studies, then the inhabitants
of the Americas had been there continuously for thousands of years prior to the
arrival of the Book of Mormon characters. Why is this an issue? Because it
means they were there before the alleged worldwide flood. It invalidates the
worldwide flood. Noah didn’t migrate from the Americas to Eurasia. It
invalidates the American location for the Garden of Eden, thus casting doubt on
the LDS justification for believing in Adam and Eve. Furthermore, if the native
population of the Americas was there many thousands of years before Book of
Mormon settlers arrived, then Natives are necessarily Pre-Adamites. They are
older than the first parents of the human family. So if we accept the
reconstructed narrative, either Native Americans are not part of the human
family, or Adam and Eve are not the first parents of the human family. This
casts further doubt on any LDS justification for accepting the reality of Adam
and Eve.
It was through Adam’s
transgression that physical death, spiritual death, and sin entered the world;
and it is those very things that necessitate an atonement and a savior. So if
one accepts the reconstructed Book of Mormon narrative, it casts doubt on the
reality of Adam and Eve, casts doubt on the fall, casts doubt on the need to be
redeemed from the fall, and so casts doubt on the very need for a redeemer.
It ought to go without saying
that because we are His servants, we are duty bound to conceal this implication
from the faithful…
Conclusion
Maintaining faith in the LDS Church is a difficult
task, requiring all sorts of convoluted mental gymnastics, and a tenacious
aversion to sources that reveal unwhitewashed information about our Lord’s
Church. In order to maintain the current membership numbers and tithing
revenues we need to stem the flow of families that are discovering unfiltered
information about our history and theology, and as a result, leaving the fold.
Brethren, if you do your job correctly, the flock will not think critically about
the issues raised by our critics, and with your guidance will successfully
protect their fragile faith by believing that you have dismissed any and all
criticisms.
Amen and Amen.
Anderson, L. F. , "The LDS Intellectual
Community and Church Leadership: A Contemporary Chronology." Vol. 26 No. 1
Spring 1993, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, p.
11
Anderson, R. D. (1999). Inside the Psychobiography
and the Book of Mormon. Mind of Joseph Smith. Salt Lake City, Utah; Signature
Books. footnote 28, p. xliii
Ash, Michael R. Horses in the Book of Mormon. http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/horses-in-the-book-of-mormon
Clark, J. R. When Are the Writings or Sermons of
Church Leaders Entitled to the Claim of Scripture? [address delivered to
seminary and institute of religion personnel, 7 July 1954], p. 7.)
Benson, E. T. (1981). Fourteen Fundamentals in
Following the Prophet. https://www.lds.org/liahona/1981/06/fourteen-fundamentals-in-following-the-prophet?lang=eng
Jeni Broberg Holzapfel and Richard Neitzel
Holzapfel, eds., A Woman's View: Helen Mar Whitney's Reminiscences of
Early Church History (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham
Young University, 1997), 481–487
Jensen, M. K. (2012). (http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/01/30/uk-mormonchurch-idUKTRE80T1CP20120130).
Larson, G. O. (1958). "The Mormon
Reformation," Utah Historical Quarterly 26/1.
Muhlestein, K. (2014). BYU
professor speaks on unnoticed assumptions about the Book of Abraham – Deseret
News
Oaks, D. H. (1985).Reading Church History,” CES
Doctrine and Covenants Symposium, Brigham Young University, 16 Aug. 1985. p. 25
Packer, B. K. 1981, BYU Studies, Vol.
21, No. 3, pp. 259-271
Packer, B. K. The Candle of the Lord,"
Ensign, Jan. 1983, pp. 54-55
Peterson, D. C. (2017). Can
There Be Any Valid Criticisms Of The Church? | Dan Peterson (patheos.com)
Helen Mar Whitney, Autobiography, March
30, 1881
[i] Kerry Muhlestein:
“I start out with an assumption that the Book of Abraham and the Book of
Mormon, and anything else that we get from the restored gospel, is true,” he
said. “Therefore, any evidence I find, I will try to fit into that paradigm.” (Muhlestein,
2014)
Denial
C. Peterson: “Since the Church is ex hypothesi true, there can
be no genuine evidence that it is false. There can be seeming evidence
against its claims, evidence that reasonable people might well regard as
genuine and damning. In the end, though, on the assumption that the
claims of the Church are true, what seems to be genuine, damning evidence
against it must ultimately prove not to be such.” (Peterson,
2017)
[ii] Leaving aside the
fact that in D&C 132, the Lord answers the Prophet Joseph’s query as
to whether he is committing adultery by stating
(euphemistically but explicitly) that it is the purpose of plural
“marriage" is (according to 132:63) to "multiply and replinish the
earth," and that doing so (37) is "accounted...for
righteousness," the important fact here is that the anonymous author was
able to lead the reader to draw his or her own conclusions by cleverly leaving
out the context. Helen describes herself (found in Holzapfel and Holzapfel,
1997) as “but one Ewe Lamb…laid…upon the alter.” She describes how her mothers
“heartstrings were…stretched until they were ready to snap asunder.” But why?
Why was her mother’s heart “bleeding” over this? Because her mother
had
witnessed the sufferings of others, who were older & who better understood
the step they were taking, & to see her child…following in the same thorny
path, in her mind she saw the misery which was as sure to come as the sun was
to rise and set; but it was all hidden from me.
“…it
was all hidden from me.”
The
actual context of the phrase “for eternity alone” is a poem written by Helen
(Whitney, 1881, p. 2) for her children many years after the fact. She begins
the poem by stating how she believed the “marriage” to be “for eternity
alone” but “[n]o one need be the wiser, through time I shall
be free,” then spends much of the remainder of the poem lamenting her dismay at
how she was disappointed and trapped “like a fetter’d bird with a wild and
longing heart” that would “daily pine for freedom.”
The
context of the phrase “for eternity alone” clearly indicates her disappointment
that her childhood “marriage” to the 37 year old prophet was most emphatically
not “for eternity alone.”
Well
played anonymous essay author. Well played.
[iii] The classic example of this rhetorical ploy comes
is the Onionesque “Chicken ‘N’ Backpacks” from Michael Ash.
It’s also possible that
Nephite “horses”–at least when associated with chariots–were among the
provisions that King Lamoni needed during his travels (we know that horses were
part of the provisions which the Nephites reserved for themselves when fighting
the Gadianton Robbers [3 Nephi 4:4]). Perhaps “preparing” the horses and
chariots would be like “preparing the chicken and backpack.” To modern ears
this doesn’t suggest that the chicken will carry the backpack but rather than a
chicken meal will be prepared to go in the backpack. If Book of Mormon horses
were eaten, they may have been one of the provisions loaded on a “chariot” and
carried or dragged by men.
Michael R. Ash. Horses in the
Book of Mormon.
Comedy gold!
[iv] e.g. Blacks and the Priesthood, death for
interracial marriage, Oath of Vengeance, Adam-God, Blood Atonement, being
judged by Joseph Smith to get into heaven, dark skin as a sign of pre-existence
fence-sitting, Roman Catholic Church the whore of the Earth, Plural Marriage,
Plural marriage requirement for Celestial Kingdom, Polyandry, Natives are
Isrealites, dark skin is a curse from God, righteous Indians turn into whiteys,
something close to Trinity, God being a Spirit (Lectures on Faith), Lectures on
Faith are scripture, Temple portrayal of Protestant Ministers in the employ of
Satan, all non LDS Christianity is a tool of Satan, Presiding Patriarch is one
of the prophets seers and revelators…ad nauseum…sorry…I have lost my train of
thought…
No comments:
Post a Comment