I am gradually trying to put together a book that is (i) a critique of the foundational claims of Mormonism, and (ii) an attempt to make a case for "Apatheism"--the position that one should not actually care whether God exists or not.
I am far from done. With time constraints, I am likely a year or two away from completion. Some of my blog entries are drafts of chapters, or parts of chapters.
What follows is a relatively complete draft of the first chapter. I hope it catches your interest enough to look out for the book should it ever come to fruition.
Introduction
Let’s be upfront.
In the coming pages, I aim to
convince you, gentle reader, primarily of three things.
My broadest target is faith itself.
As controversial as it might appear at first blush, I intend to argue that
faith is a misguided and even potentially harmful notion. The subject of faith will
be broached throughout the essay, but is concentrated primarily in the latter
portions. Some of the discussion will center on the LDS conceptions of faith,
and much of it will be a wider critique of faith that is more generally applicable.
Second, I hope to convince you that
the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (nicknamed both the Mormon Church
and the LDS Church—I will use variations of all three names interchangeably),
is not quite as it claims to be; that is, that the foundational claims upon
which the Church is built cannot be substantiated in any meaningful way.
The third aim of the project is to
suggest that while religion might appear attractive in its packaging, when
unpacked, it doesn’t quite do what it says on the box. There are things that good
and honest people cherish in their religion (salvation, a proper moral code,
knowledge of the way things “really” are, purpose, etc.), but I will contend
that there is less value in the religious life than is generally accepted.
In many ways these objectives are
intertwined. Faith is a foundation for believing in Mormonism. The critical
reasoning that leads some out of Mormonism can also lead people to reject
religion and faith in general. An evaluation of the role of religion in one’s
life would likely follow from, or lead to, a faith crisis. So although the
discussion of Mormonism is concentrated nearer the front, and considerations of
faith are centered in the latter pages, there will be extensive cross
pollination throughout.
To meet the objectives of
critiquing faith, the LDS Church, and the religious life, the book will roughly
be divided into two parts, the first of which will segue into the second
because of the shared subject matter of faith.
The first part will be a critique
of the foundational claims of the LDS Church, focusing on Joseph’s Smith’s
First Vision, his claims to be able to translate ancient documents, and the
Book of Mormon.
The second part will be the
presentation of a case for Apatheism.
The term is intended to be a play on words, a combination of theism and apathy,
but is also intended to represent legitimate intellectually satisfying position
regarding the questions of religion.
There are certain things that attract people to the religious life, things
that those involved in religion will identify as the reasons that keep them committed
to a life of faith.
First, there are the answers to the big questions like the ultimate
nature of reality, the true nature of self, the purpose of life, and the
question of life after death.
Second, there is a sense of place. By “place” I mean a number of
things. Religion tells us that we are not insignificant in a potentially
infinite and random universe. It tells us where we are on our eternal journey.
It offers a home and extended family in congregations. It provides milestones
by which we check off our progress through life’s journey. Under this heading
of “place” I will also include a relationship with the divine, although it
could fit equally well in the category of “answers to the big questions.”
Third, there is source of knowing that is not applicable to the
non-religious. Faith offers an
assurance that the things we believe are accurate.
Fourth, there is a moral code. We need to know God’s will in order to
know the good. We are told, ad nauseam,
that commandments are required in order for us to be virtuous, and it is
commonly held that in the absence of a threat of punishment, anything goes
(e.g. Alma 42: 17-21).
And fifth, perhaps most importantly, there is the question of the need
for salvation. The world in which we live seems corrupt, and we are all sinners
who are unworthy to be rewarded with an eternity in the presence of God in
heaven, and risk an eternity of separation from God (or worse, of being set on
fire by our heavenly father, with never even a possibility of that fire being
extinguished—but this does not apply to LDS theology).
I will try to make the
case that the above reasons, upon close inspection, actually ought to hold no
purchase over us. I will argue that the answers provided by religion are not
worth believing, that the sense of place provided by religion is really
illusory, that faith is misguided and does more harm in the world than good,
that the moral code as provided by religion does more harm than good, and
consequently, even if God exists, it just doesn’t matter. Apatheism answers the
question of the existence of God with a shrug of the shoulders. Does God exist…?
It just doesn’t matter.
Chapter
one
If
we have not the truth…
Latter-Day Saints and a
Tradition of Intellectual Openness
Even though we can find said
justifications in the words of the Church leaders, we can also find instances
of leaders and thinkers pointing us in the direction of quelling any investigation
into the claims of the Church. These types of statements typically, though not
always, tend to be from the more recent history of the Church.
Let’s begin by trying to make a
case for an objective evaluation of the claims of Mormonism by considering the
sentiments of some the founders and leaders of the faith.
First, here are some appeals to
intellectual openness from the prophet Joseph Smith, the founder of the movement.
"I want the liberty of believing as I please, it feels good not to
be trammeled. It don't prove that a man is not a good man, because he errs in
doctrine."[1]
What an inspiring thought. It is
okay to possibly be wrong.
In the finalized retelling of his “First Vision,”[2]
Joseph Smith reported that because his account was also a critique of all
existing churches, defenders of those Churches were hostile to his sharing of
his experience. Smith’s purported reaction to their defensiveness was to ask
"[w]hy persecute me for telling the truth? ...Who am I that I can
withstand God? ...I knew (the truth), and I knew God knew it, and I could not
deny it; at least I knew that by so doing I would offend God, and come under
condemnation."[3]
Joseph Smith, quite contrary to
opinion of some current Latter-Day Saints, implied (at least in the above
passages) that conformity within a church is not a requirement, that having different
opinions was acceptable, and that disagreeing with accepted views was noble.
Had he not held such a perspective,
he would not have felt the freedom to raise questions about the extant churches
of his day, questions that led to the foundation of the LDS movements. An
attitude of questioning ones religious tradition was an absolutely necessary
condition for the birth of the LDS faith.
On another occasion Smith wrote
We have heard men who hold the
priesthood remark that they would do anything they were told to do by those who
preside over them—even if they knew it was wrong. But such obedience as this is
worse than folly to us. It is slavery in the extreme. The man who would thus
willingly degrade himself should not claim a rank among intelligent beings
until he turns from his folly.
A man of God would despise this
idea. Others, in the extreme exercise of their almighty authority have taught
that such obedience was necessary, and that no matter what the Saints were told
to do by their presidents, they should do it without any questions.
When Elders of Israel[4] will
so far indulge in these extreme notions of obedience as to teach them to the
people, it is generally because they have it in their hearts to do wrong
themselves.[5]
The second President of the Church,
Brigham Young, likewise welcomed an attitude of questioning:
“Take up the Bible,” he
said, “compare the religion of the Latter-day Saints with it, and see if it
will stand the test.”[6]
Another
time, President Young exclaimed “I will tell you who the real fanatics are:
they are they who adopt false principles and ideas as facts, and try to
establish a superstructure upon a false foundation...If our religion is of this
character we want to know it; we would like to find a philosopher who can prove
it to us.”[7][8]
John Taylor, the third President of
the Church agreed that “…a full, free talk is frequently of great use; we want
nothing secret nor underhanded, and I for one want no association with things
that cannot be talked about and will not bear investigation.”[9]
Early Church leaders recognized
that they were making some rather unique and bold claims. They suggested that any
challenge to these bold claims could only strengthen their claims, not weaken
them. Consider the words of a member of the original LDS council of the 12 Apostles,
Orson Pratt:
Convince us of our errors of
Doctrine, if we have any, by reason, by logical arguments, or by the Word of
God and we will ever be grateful for the information and you will ever have the
pleasing reflections that you have been instruments in the hands of God of
redeeming your fellow beings.[10][11]
A
similar opinion was voiced many years later by Hugh B. Brown in a speech to BYU
in 1958, shortly before becoming a member of the council of the 12 Apostles (he
was later to be a member of the 1st Presidency as well):
“Only error fears freedom of expression… Neither fear of consequence
nor any kind of coercion should ever be used to secure uniformity of thought in
the Church”[12]
And in the same address:
“…we should also be unafraid to dissent - if we are informed. Thoughts
and expressions compete in the marketplace of thought, and in that competition
truth emerges triumphant.”
“…and in that competition truth
emerges triumphant.” This is a noble thought. It reaches far back in our
intellectual history. We find it in the dialogues of Socrates, and the writings
of Plato and Aristotle. We find it in the great
modern thinkers like Kant, Hegel, and Marx. David Hume allegedly[13] captures
the notion wonderfully concisely when he is quoted as saying “Truth springs
from argument amongst friends.” In more recent years we see it reflected in our
understanding of how science progresses in such opposing views of science as
Kuhn,[14] and
Popper.[15]
This approach to analysis is known
as Dialectic (or the Dialectic Method). Its great strength lies in that, unlike
quarrelling, or even debating, there is no goal to win an argument or to gain a
consensus. I want to emphasize this point. In a dialectic exchange, nobody is trying to win. Nobody ought to
claim “I won that argument.” Instead, the goal is to examine a
proposition/question/problem from multiple perspectives so as to triangulate in
on truth and eliminate falsehoods. If there is a winner in a dialectic
exchange, it is simply the truth. The truth is what matters. “Truth,” as Hume might
say, “emerges triumphant.”
The Apostle James E. Talmage,
considered one of the great, if not the greatest, theologians of the LDS
tradition suggested that
[t]he
man who cannot listen to an argument which opposes his views either has a weak
position or is a weak defender of it. No opinion that cannot stand discussion
or criticism is worth holding. And it has been wisely said that the man who
knows only half of any question is worse off than the man who knows nothing of
it. He is not only one-sided but his partisanship soon turns him into an
intolerant and a fanatic. In general it is true that nothing which cannot stand
up under discussion or criticism is worth defending.[16]
Another Apostle, John A. Widtsoe,
made a similar comment: “To Latter-day Saints there can be no objection to the
careful and critical study of the scriptures, ancient or modern, provided only
that it be an honest study - a search for truth."[17]
J. Reuben Clark, another of the 12
Apostles, stated the position in the form of a challenge: “If we have the
truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation.
If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed.”[18][19]
(italics added).
Recent President of the Church
Gordon B. Hinckley has, at least on occasion, agreed. In an interview with the
Associated Press at Christmas 2005, President Hinckley expressed the view that
“…we have nothing to hide. Our history is an open book. They [critics] may find
what they are looking for, but the fact is the history of the Church is clear
and open and leads to faith and strength and virtues.”[20]
I hope that I am beginning to
establish that there has been a longstanding tradition of questioning in the
Church. Many of the fathers of the Church recognized that truth can spring from
something like a dialectic process, and that the truth is what matters—not the
appearance of truth, not defending a belief at all costs, but discovering the truth.
Surely that is why many of us
gravitated to the Church—it is the desire,
above all, to believe things that are
true. And, as President Clark and Elder Talmage observe, if it is not true,
it is, perhaps, not worth believing.
It is my opinion that that
tradition of questioning is indispensable and ought to be encouraged. President
Joseph F. Smith held this position. He testified before Congress that Latter-Day
Saints
are given the largest possible latitude of their
convictions, and if a man rejects a message that I may give to him but is still
moral and believes in the main principles of the gospel and desires to continue
in his membership in the Church, he is permitted to remain…Members of the
Mormon Church are not all united on every principle. Every man is entitled to
his own opinion and his own views and his own conceptions of right and wrong so
long as they do not come in conflict with the standard principles of the Church...
But so long as a man believes in God and has a little faith in the Church
organization, we nurture and aid that person to continue faithfully as a member
of the Church though he may not believe all that is revealed.”[21]
Although there has been this wonderful
tradition of intellectual openness, there has, sadly, been a competing tide
that has been around for an equally long time, but in more recent times seems
to be edging out the competing view.
For example,
Elder Ezra Taft Benson, in 1976 (only a few years before becoming the President
of the Church) equated historical accuracy with "slander and defamation,”
and told LDS academics that “If you feel you must write for the scholarly
journals, you always defend the faith.” Do not “humanize the prophets of God.”
In a serious blow to intellectual openness he ordered that Church educators
were not allowed to buy materials from “known apostates, or other liberal
sources.”[22]
Elder Dallin H. Oaks, current
member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles approvingly alludes to 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.”[23]
So is Elder Oaks suggesting that it
is not necessary to tell the whole truth regarding the Church? Actually, yes,
he is. Consider a hypothetical situation—let’s say that you have a criticism of
a Church leader. Not an “I don’t like this guy” type of criticism, but a substantive
criticism—what do you do? According to Elder Oaks, we are obligated to remain
silent. Oaks[24]
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
emphasizes that “it does not matter that
the criticism is true.”
Oaks[25] even
goes so far as to explicitly state that information, even if true, if it is
contrary to the aims of the Church ought to be withheld:
My 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
Mormon Enigma 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."
Note that
Elder Oaks does not say that “if lies are spread about the prophet,” or “if the
prophet Joseph is slandered,” but says that the problem would arise if someone
“reveals” information about the prophet. Elder Oaks wants to limit access to
information about Joseph Smith, including true information, if it might be
faith demoting.
Elder Boyd K. Packer[26] is
equally explicit. In his (now infamous (at least in ex-believer circles)) talk
to the Church Educational System[27],
Packer suggests that “[i]n the Church we are not neutral.
We are one-sided.” So the objective of CES instructors is not an objective
history because for one thing “[i]n an
effort to be objective, impartial, and scholarly a writer or a teacher may
unwittingly be giving equal time to the adversary.” 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.”
So the goal
of teaching or studying LDS history is not to learn history, per se, but to be
convinced of the divinity of the Church. 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
uninspiring truth about the history of the Church is like a disease: “Do
not spread disease germs!"
D. Michael
Quinn is a historian who has studied LDS history and taught at LDS Church owned
Brigham Young University (BYU). Although excommunicated for publishing material
that, although true, does not dovetail with the preferred narrative of Church
history, Quinn is, at the time of the writing, still a sincere believer in the
LDS faith.
Quinn tells his story of the hiring
process at BYU during which he had a face to face meeting with Elder Packer.
When Elder Packer discovered that the position Dr. Quinn was being considered
for was that of historian, he said (this is Quinn’s paraphrasing of Elder Packer’s
remarks): "I have a hard time with
historians, because historians idolize the truth." Quinn continues:
I almost sunk into my chair. I
mean, that statement just bowled me over. Then he went on to say, quoting him
as accurately as I can ...: "The truth is not uplifting. The truth
destroys. And historians should tell only that part of the truth that is
uplifting, and if it's religious history, that's faith-promoting." And he
said, "Historians don't like doing that, and that's why I have a hard time
with historians." And the conversation just went from there. He
occasionally would give me the opportunity to respond to what he was saying,
and I would talk about putting things in context, and that one could deal with
a controversy or a sensitive area, or even a negative experience in the past,
but put it into context. I said that it's a question of do you talk about this
in a sentence, a paragraph, a page, or do you just have a footnote reference to
it? And I said, "That's a decision that each individual historian will
make, but," I said, "I cannot agree with the idea that I should
conceal this evidence." And he just shook his head, and he said,
"You're wrong,"[28]
In his 1993
address to the All Church Coordinating Council, Elder Packer[29]
even condemns “so called” intellectuals and scholars as one of the three[30]
great dangers to the Church because they cause members to get “caught up and
led away.”
In other
words, according to these modern day apostles, criticism of the Church, its
history, and its leaders, even true and legitimate criticism, ought not happen,
and when it happens, ought to be suppressed.
Even though
we have above seen appeals to intellectual openness from Joseph Smith, Chapter
27 of the Church lesson manual, Teachings of the Presidents of the Church:
Joseph Smith, mines two quotes that have him claiming that those who leave the
Church are under the influence of Satan.
[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
and
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.
On a personal note, as of writing the
first draft of this, two of my children still occasionally attend the LDS church.
I do not appreciate lesson manuals that will tell my children that their father
is ensnared by, dictated to by, and is a servant of, Satan.
And Brigham Young, whom we have
quoted approvingly above on the subject of intellectual honesty, gives a
wonderfully contrary cautionary example about thinking too much. This, by the
way, is in the same sermon in which he famously (infamously?) discusses the
doctrine of Blood Atonement:[31]
Watch yourselves and think. As I
observed, on the evening of the 14th at the social Hall, ‘think
brethren, think,’ but do not think so far that you cannot think back again… In
the eastern country there was a man who used to go crazy, at times, and then
come to his senses again. One of his neighbors asked him what made him go
crazy; he replied, ‘I get to thinking, and thinking, until finally I think so
far that I am not always able to think back again.’ Can you think too much for
the spirit which is put in the tabernacle? You can… Let this intelligent part
labor to excess, and it will eventually overcome the tabernacle, the
equilibrium will be destroyed, and the whole organization deranged. Many people
have deranged themselves by thinking too much.[32]
Why
did I leave the LDS church?
My experience in the LDS church
was, on balance, positive. I am pleased to say that I almost always had kind
and thoughtful teachers in Primary, Sunday School, Young Men’s, Cubs &
Scouts, Seminary & Institute, and adult classes. When I consider the two
currents of thought addressed above, my teachers almost always leaned toward
the side of intellectual openness.
I can vividly remember being 4 or 5
years old, having recently learned about the LDS doctrines of spirits and the
pre-existence (that we lived as spirit beings in heaven prior to birth),
walking along holding my pregnant Mother’s hand, lost in thought trying to
figure out when my baby brother or sister’s spirit was going to get connected
to that growing physical body. As far back as I can remember, I have been
immersed in such thought, trying to understand and justify my beliefs regarding
the Church, faith, and spirituality.
My questioning nature was rarely
discouraged by my church teachers and leaders. In fact, the opposite is true.
The attitude of my teachers was always that because
it is true, there absolutely are
answers, and the answers, being truth, cannot damage faith. I was always
encouraged to ask questions, and my teachers agreed with the sentiment
expressed by President Hinckley that the answers to my questions would be
“…clear and open and lead…to faith and strength and virtues.”
I have to say that I am grateful to
my Church teachers for being in a very real and very large part responsible for
my intellectual curiosity and intellectual honesty. I was always taught that
the truth mattered. I internalized this value, and it contributed to my serving
a proselytizing mission for the Church, then to my education, to my career, and
somewhat ironically, to my eventual rejection of the LDS faith, and to my
rejection of faith in general. It was a combination of the church inspired
confidence that the faith could withstand scrutiny (as per Talmage and
Widstoe), and my church nurtured propensity to pursue answers to occasionally
thorny question that led me away from the Church.
I do not want to be ambiguous on
the next point. Why did I leave the Church? If we again refer to lesson 27 of
the manual Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, we learn
that there is ostensibly a relatively short list of reasons for apostatizing
from the Church.
1. Not
recognizing the prophet as a source of revelation for the church.
2. Pride
(and the manual gives an example of a petty squabble over milk)
3. Being
critical of leaders imperfections (the example offered is again petty, a
misspelled name on a mission call)
4. Being
offended.
6. Accepting
false teachings of the world.
The manual “Teachings of the
Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young” has an equivalent explicit message.
Chapter 12 “Preventing Personal Apostasy” has President Young warning us that “…no
person ever apostatized, without actual transgression.”
The lessons invite the faithful
member to draw the implication that there can be no legitimate reasons for
leaving the Church; if one does leave it is because they are petty, weak,
sinful, blind, or under the influence of Satan.
To be clear: I did not leave
because I was offended. I did not leave because I was hiding a secret sin, nor
because I harbored a desire to sin. I most emphatically did not leave because I
had become entrapped in the snares of Satan.
I would respectfully submit that there can be legitimate reasons for leaving the Church. These reasons are
the purpose of writing this essay. Which brings me to my next point…
Is
This Anti-Mormon Literature?
Members of the LDS faith are warned
incessantly to avoid “Anti-Mormon Literature.”
Incessantly.[34]
The term “anti-mormon literature”
is oh so frustrating. By tarring anything and everything that is critical of
the Church, its leaders, or its beliefs and practices with the same
“anti-mormon literature” brush, defenders of the faith fail to distinguish
between legitimate criticism and whatever it is they believe “anti” literature
to be (hate mongering, bold face lies, persecution, snares set by Satan…). By
calling any and all criticisms of the Church “anti mormon literature,”
defenders are implying (agreeing with Elders Oaks and Packer) that there is no
such thing as legitimate criticism. One would be hard pressed to find any LDS
source, including informal and unofficial sources, that acknowledges that any
criticism of the Church could be legitimate.
I hope that the reader will agree,
that after considering the above sentiments from Joseph Smith, Brigham Young,
John Taylor, Gordon B. Hinckley, et al, that legitimate criticism of the faith
is valuable and to be desired.
If the LDS church is a fraud, would
you want to find out? Clearly, an affirmative response to this questions
requires the possibility of constructive criticism. If the Church is what it
claims to be, then the believer has nothing to lose from criticism. If the
Church is not all it claims to be, then criticism can help us discover where we
are mistaken.
Typically, almost all instances of
“anti-mormon literature” shares a similar subtext. Critics commonly point out
differences between more traditional forms of Christianity and The Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Critics then state or presume that because the
traditional forms are true and correct, the LDS Church is not true and correct.
“Anti-Mormon” polemic is almost always religiously motivated, and implies that
since you are not the same as us, you must be wrong.
I will not pursue this line of
reasoning[35], as I
think that other religions are wrong for the same reasons that I think
Mormonism is wrong—that acceptance of the tenets of any religious or spiritual
organization or movement requires the adherent to surrender reason to an
unjustifiable acceptance of the validity of faith.
Consider for a moment the LDS claim
to the only “true” church and what this entails. The canonical version of Joseph Smith’s First
Vision (written 1838, published 1842, allegedly happened 1820), has Jesus
Christ himself calling all other Christian religions “all wrong; and … an abomination
in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt”[36].
Later, Jesus again, dictating to Joseph Smith, says that Mormonism is “the only
true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the
Lord, am well pleased.”[37]
President Spencer W. Kimball (the President/Prophet from 1973-1985)
says: “This is the only true church ...This is not a church. This
is the Church of Jesus Christ. There are churches of men all over
the land and they have great cathedrals, synagogues, and other houses of
worship running into the hundreds of millions of dollars. They are churches of
men. They teach the doctrines of men, combined with the philosophies and ethics
and other ideas and ideals that men have partly developed and partly found in
sacred places and interpreted for themselves."[38]
President Kimball’s successor, Ezra Taft Benson (President/Prophet from
1985-1994) likewise says that we are not part of the same category as the
Christian churches: "This is not just another Church. This is not
just one of a family of Christian churches. This is the Church and kingdom
of God, the only true Church upon the face of the earth..."[39]
In most Christian faiths, salvation is relatively independent of which
church one is a member; most Episcopalians would not have a problem believing
that a Lutheran or Baptist can go to heaven, and vice versa. Not so in
Mormonism. In the LDS church, membership in the Church is essential for
salvation, and in the words of LDS Apostle Bruce R. McConkie “[t]here is no
salvation outside The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”[40]
So what about those who are baptized into other faiths? Will a loving
and understanding God not honor these acts of faith? President Charles W.
Penrose, who served as a Mormon Apostle and as 1st and 2nd Counselor in the
First Presidency of the Church lays it out for us: “Every baptism of the Catholic Church, and of the Episcopal Church,
and of the Baptist Church, or any other
church, if God Almighty did not ordain and authorize the man who performed
the ordinance even though he performed it in the right way and used the right
words, is null and void…”[41]
And Spencer W. Kimball (shortly before becoming Church
President/Prophet) goes even further: it’s not only meaningless, but “[p]resumptuous
and blasphemous are they who purport to baptize, bless, marry, or perform
other sacraments in the name of the Lord while in fact lacking the specific
authorization.”[42]
With that in mind, consider the question of why the Church deploys a
force of tens of thousands[43]
of missionaries around the world. The Church’s missionaries are not out there
doing charity work, building schools, digging wells, or doing other things
commonly associated with modern day missionaries. At least, that is not their
primary focus. No, the goal of the LDS missionary is to win converts to
Mormonism.
In order to convert souls to the LDS faith, missionaries must, of
necessity, convince investigators that their previous faiths are mistaken. In
other words, for the mission force, there can be nothing inherently wrong with
trying to convince others that they are mistaken in their beliefs. If there is
nothing inherently wrong with trying to convince others of the errors in their
beliefs, then there can be no reason to take umbrage when others are critical
of Mormonism.
Furthermore, members of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day
Saints literally believe that salvation can only come through formal membership
in the one correct Church. Hence the justification for the large missionary
force. If it is true that salvation requires membership in the one correct
Church (as per Smith, Kimball, Benson, and Christ), then surely members of the
Church are missing the mark when offended by non-believers and ex-believers
arguing that current members are risking their salvation by maintaining
membership in the wrong Church. Members who believe in “one true church” should
consider it the duty of the critic to try to point out the Church’s errors (as
was suggested by Brigham Young, John Taylor, Orson Pratt, Hugh B. Brown, John A
Widstoe, James E. Talmage, et al, above), and, if anything, ought to be
offended by non- and ex-believers who do not try to share legitimate criticism!
Exactly how to clearly delineate
between legitimate and illegitimate criticism, I cannot say I have exactly
figured that out. But…
I shall do my best to avoid
sensationalist claims (like one might find in the overtly misleading books and
films “The Godmakers).” [44]
I shall do my best to avoid
ad-hominem attacks (though readers will disagree as to exactly what constitutes
an ad-hominem attack or what doesn’t; I ask the readers understanding if
(when?) I inadvertently cross the line between non-ad-hominem and ad-hominem).
I shall do my best to avoid logical
fallacies in general.
I will try to avoid drawing
conclusions that are stronger than the premisses warrant. When I am speculating,
I will try to make it explicit that I am so doing.
Whenever possible, I shall try to
use the words of Church leaders and thinkers themselves, and not the
interpretations of critics of the Church. I shall also give references to
sources where the reader can find the words for themselves. In doing so, I hope
to avoid the perception that I am misrepresenting the Church.
When referring to 2nd
(or 3rd) hand accounts of events or conversations I will try to
state that that’s what they are, and do my best to offer some commentary on the
reliability of the account.
Inevitably, I will make errors.
Please know that when I err, it is only due to my fallibility, not because I am
who Ephesians 4:14 warned you about, and that I “lie in wait to deceive.”
Are
you a happy lifer?
There is a commonly used phrase in
LDS theological discussions. “Milk before meat.” Neophytes should never be
exposed to the deep doctrines, to the
controversial teachings and practices—the meat—of the Church until they are
familiar with the basics—the milk. The concept refers to the notion that it is
justifiable to conceal the truth about more complex or controversial doctrines
or practices of the Church, if it is in the Church’s best interests.
As seen above, Boyd K. Packer[45] has
said so: “Some things that are true are not very useful…The
Lord made it clear that some things are to be taught selectively and some
things are to be given only to those who are worthy…” And Dallin H. Oaks[46]
agrees with the sentiment: “… if [a source of information] reveals information
that is detrimental to the reputation of [the Church], then it is necessary to
try to limit its influence and that of its authors.”
As a young missionary, I recall
being taught to use a strategy that was in line with what Elders Packer and
Oaks are suggesting. Instead of directly answering the questions of those we
taught (our “investigators,” or “‘gators”), we were taught to answer the question that the investigator
should have asked. If an investigator asked a question about, say, plural
marriage, temple rituals, or the Adam God doctrine, we were to divert the
discussion in the direction of Joseph Smith’s divine calling, the Book of
Mormon, or our relationship with God. We were to offer only milk, never theological
or historical meat.
We might not have been permitted to
teach the “meat” to our investigators, but that never stopped us from delving
into the meaty theological questions ourselves. We were very interested in
answering such questions as reasons for the 1978 lift of the prohibition of blacks
in the Priesthood, the conception of Jesus, the Adam-God doctrine, polygamy, the
prior mortality of God, etc.
But we also recognized that there
were some who were simply not interested in such issues. There were some folks
who were involved in Church for different psychological reasons. Perhaps they
remained involved because of family reasons. Or the Church offered economic
contacts. Maybe they enjoyed the Sunday fellowship. Maybe they received a sense
of moral certainty. Maybe they just didn’t care, and being a believer was good
enough, even if they didn’t know what it was that they believed. Maybe church
offered a sense of purpose or belonging. For whatever reason, such members were
just not interested in doctrinal questions—at least not in “deep” doctrine.
We missionaries had a nickname for
such members. We called them “happy lifers.” They were perfectly happy with
their church life without being concerned with complex theological issues, nor with
the justification of belief claims. Church met some social or psychological
need, and that was good enough. Such persons, when confronted with the question
“if the Church were a fraud, would you want to know” might be perfectly satisfied
to answer in the negative.
If you have read this far, you are
presumably not a happy lifer. If you are, this book might not be for you. I
have no axe to grind with people who wish to stay in the Church solely because
it makes them happy. But reading further will raise questions about faith and
knowledge, theology, history, metaphysics, etc—questions about which happy
lifers will take little interest.
Still reading? Good.
“The
Church is True”—What does this even mean?
“The Church is true” is a statement
I learned to make as a child; I learned to repeat the phrase mechanically
before I had the cognitive wherewithal to evaluate the meaning of it. It is not
a sentence about which I can say I honestly know what it means; it seems to me
now to be essentially meaningless because it is, I think, a categorical error.
If I say “my daughter came home in a flood of tears” and you respond
“really? I thought she came home on a train…” you have somehow missed the point
of what I was trying to convey. Your error ought to be obvious. You treated the
flood of tears and the train as though they are both the same sorts of
things—as if they belong in the same category. Even though the train and the
flood of tears might structurally fit into a sentence in exactly the same
place, they change the meaning of the sentence by virtue of the fact that the
flood of tears belongs to the category of emotional states, whereas the train
belongs to the category of means of transportation.
A categorical error occurs when we
conflate things that belong in one category with things that belong in another category.
It was introduced by Gilbert Ryle[47]
as a way of resolving the issue of the relationship between mind and body. He
suggested, contra Descartes, that mind and body belong to different categories.
There is a category of things that
can potentially be true or false.
Ask yourself: What sorts of things
can be true and false? Is a question true/false? Or a rock? Can a rock be true
or false?
That category of things that can be
described as true or false is comprised of representations.
Representations are things that are about
something (usually something other than itself). Photographs, for example, are
representations, because they are about
something (a family, a party, a UFO…), books or films are about something. A memory, a belief or a proposition are all about something.
Forgive the impreciseness of my language here, but here is
my working definition of a representation: A representation is something that
is about something.
Things in this category (things
that are about something) might be
accurate representations or they might not be. A book about WWII might contain
errors. It is still a representation, just not an accurate one. A memory or
belief may or may not accurately coincide with the way things actually were or
are.
So this category of things can be
true or they can be false, or can be a mix. Your memory of your 10th
birthday party probably contains parts that are true and some that are not. For
the purposes of this essay we will hold that a representation is true to the
extent that it accurately corresponds to the facts—the way things are (or were,
or will be).
So, quite simply, if I believe that
Mt. Kilimanjaro
With that definition of the
category of things that can be true in hand, it is now easier to see why “The
Church is true” is a problematic statement.
There are clearly things that don’t
fall into the category of things that can be true. Unlike propositions, some
statements are not representations—questions, or performative utterances (“I do,”
“I promise.”) do not represent the way things are. People are not
representations (…well, maybe actors…), and so are not true in the sense that representations can be true.
Institutions are not
representations. Would it make sense to say “your family is true” or that
“the Provincial Government of Sakatchewan is true” or that “the Prime Minister
of Great Britain is true?” Not in the same sense that a history book or a
theory could be described as true.
Would it make sense to say “my
family is false? No? Why not? Because families are not representations, and do
not fall under the category of things that are about something, so cannot be
true or false. Similarly, the LDS church, being an institution, is not about something else. It does not
purport to represent, in the same way that a picture, memory, painting,
sentence, or belief does, something else. It lacks aboutness. So the LDS church, like any other church, or any other
institution, does not fall into the same category as those things that we might
describe as being true or false.
Yet we still hear the phrase (“the
Church is true”). And frequently. So what do we mean when we utter such a
phrase. I suspect that in each speakers mind the sentence might mean something
slightly different, but I can think of a few plausible interpretations of what
it might mean to an individual.
“The LDS church is the only one
with the real Priesthood, or with legitimate God given authority.”
“The LDS church is the only one led
by a divinely inspired prophet, the only one with God at the helm.”
“The sum total of the teachings of
the LDS church are true.”
“The core doctrines of the LDS
church are true.”
“The LDS church is necessary for
salvation; the LDS church is the only one that can offer salvation.”
I suppose we could extend this list
further, but the list is meant to be representative, not exhaustive. In each
case, it is not the institution itself that is true or false, but some
statement or belief about the Church that can be described as being true or
false. And each sentiment is the sort of thing that could plausibly be in the
mind of the speaker who states “The Church is true.”
Now, ask yourself the following
question. With any of the above interpretations of “The Church is true,” could
the Church still be true even if Joseph Smith were not a legitimate prophet.
Keep in mind that I’m not (yet) arguing that he’s not, I’m just posing a
hypothetical question. Hypothetically, if Joseph Smith turned out to be a fraud
(even a pious, well intentioned fraud) could we still claim that the LDS church
has the only legitimate Priesthood? That the current president (President
Monson as I write the first draft of this essay) is a legitimate prophet, seer,
and revelator? That the teachings of the Church are true (especially the ones
that appear “quirky” to those outside the Church)? That the LDS church is the
only organization that can offer salvation?
It seems that if Joseph Smith is
not a prophet, then all of the statements listed as corollaries of “the Church
is true” have the rug pulled out from beneath them.
Very loosely speaking, this style
of argument is Kantian. Immanuel Kant, one of the great 18th century
enlightenment thinkers, developed a style of reasoning known as transcendental
arguments (see, for example, his 1871 work, Critique of Pure Reason), in which
one starts from the known, from the conclusion, and tries to derive what must
necessarily be true in order for that conclusion to be true.[48]
In our Kantian-ish argument, we
might ask the following: If the
Church is true, by any of the corollaries above, then what else must be true?
What does the statement “The Church is true” require in order to be true?
We have already intimated one. If
the Church is true, it requires that Joseph Smith was a prophet. President
Joseph Feilding Smith said so explicitly:[49]
“Mormonism, as it is called, must stand or fall on the story of Joseph Smith.
He was either a prophet of God, divinely called, properly appointed and
commissioned, or he was one of the biggest frauds this world has ever seen.
There is no middle ground.”
On more than one occasion,
President Hinckley has made similar assertions, specifically in relation to
Joseph Smith’s vision of God the Father and Jesus Christ (Pearl of Great Price,
Joseph Smith History): “Without that history we have nothing; The truth of that
remarkable event is the pivotal substance of our faith."[50]
And [51]
…[t]hat becomes the hinge pin on
which this whole cause turns. If the First Vision was true, if it actually
happened, then the Book of Mormon is true. Then we have the priesthood. Then we
have the Church organization and all of the other keys and blessings of
authority which we say we have. If the
First Vision did not occur, then we are involved in a great sham. It is
just that simple. (Italics added)
On
another occasion (long before he was the President of the Church, he starkly
stated that “I would like to say that this cause is either true or false.
Either this is the kingdom of God, or it is a sham and a delusion. Either
Joseph talked with the Father and the Son, or he did not. If he did not, we are
engaged in blasphemy”[52]
One might consider the prophetic
calling of Joseph Smith a “pillar” of the faith. President of the Church Howard
W. Hunter called the first vision “the first pillar
of our faith…"[53]
If Joseph
Smith is not the prophet he claimed to be, then The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day
Saints, is, according to its own leaders, a great sham, engaged in blasphemy,
and one of the biggest frauds this world has ever seen.
If the structure of the Church is
to be upheld, there are going to be pillars supporting it. The divine calling of
the Prophet Joseph is one of those pillars, without it, the Church is not what
it claims. It is, we might say, a sine
qua non, a “without which, not.” Without the prophetic calling of Joseph
Smith, the Church is not what it claims to be.
The basic structure of the critique
of Mormonism to be found in these pages is to consider the pillars of the Church,
the sine qua non, and to try to argue
that they do not hold up to scrutiny.
So there will be a section on
Joseph Smith. I will follow various lines of evidence and reasoning to try to
show that Joseph Smith was not really a prophet.
Now we might further ask if, in
addition to the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith, there are other such sine qua non, other such pillars? What
else must be true in order for the LDS church to be the “true” church?
Since Joseph Smith is the source of
the Book of Mormon, if the Book of Mormon is not what it claims to be, then it
stands to reason that evidence against the Book of Mormon would also count as
one of the lines of evidence against the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith.
However, due to numerous issues with the Book of Mormon, it is deserving of its
own section.
According to President Ezra Taft
Benson, if the Book of Mormon is not true, then neither is the Church. At the
Fall 1986 general conference of the Church he refers to the famous statement by
Joseph Smith in the introduction to the Book of Mormon that “…the Book of
Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our
religion… Then President Benson adds, in no uncertain terms, that
…the Book of Mormon is the
keystone of testimony. Just as the arch crumbles if the keystone is removed, so
does all the Church stand or fall with the truthfulness of the Book of
Mormon…if it can be discredited, the Prophet Joseph Smith goes with it. So does
our claim to priesthood keys, and revelation, and the restored Church.[54]
Among the numerous other issues with
Book of Mormon are the theory of knowledge espoused by the book (also covered
in this project), the difficulties with geographical interpretations (limited
geography v. hemispheric models), issues of genetics and archeology, and
descriptions of animals, agriculture, and technology. There are textual
difficulties, significant (yes, significant) unaccounted for changes in the
text, passages that come from the new testament, errors in Biblical passages
that only recently crept into the Bible (i.e. long after the alleged source
material for the Book of Mormon was compiled), and the apparently modern source
of some Book of Mormon material . There are issues regarding the translation
process, the gold plates, and the witnesses. Finally, considering that the Book
of Mormon purportedly “contains the fullness of the gospel” and is “the most
correct book on the face of the earth” it is remarkably insignificant in
relation to the actual theology of the LDS faith.
Another pillar, perhaps less
obvious, follows from the fact that the Utah Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day
Saints is not the only branch of Mormonism. Following the death of Joseph Smith
it was not clear to the membership (or even to the leadership) how the Church
was to move forward. A number of leaders put forward proposals and drew large
numbers of followers. A sizable plurality of the membership accepted Brigham
Young’s initial proposal that the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles should assume
the leadership of the Church, and this branch of believers became the dominant Utah
branch of Mormonism, the largest and most well known faction of the movement.
But others made conflicting
proposals. Many had made a case for a lineal succession in which Joseph’s
younger brother would have taken the helm of the Church. Along the same lines,
others argued that Joseph’s son, Joseph Smith III ought to be the next prophet.
Interestingly, Brigham Young might have held this view as late as 1860 (16
years after the death of Joseph, 13 years after Young became President of the
Church and settled the Salt Lake valley).[55] FYI,
1860 was when Joseph Smith III accepted the presidency of the Reorganized
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
Another proposal came from Sidney
Rigdon, one of the co-founders of the Church, and the only surviving member of
the First Presidency. He contended that there should be no successor to Joseph
Smith per se. Instead of having a replacement prophet, he proposed that he should
act as a protector or guardian at the head of the Church.
A very large number of followers
(including most of the members of Joseph Smith’s family) accepted the claims of
James Strang on the grounds that he possessed a letter from Joseph Smith that
apparently appointed him to be the next president of the Church. The church
organized by Strang exists today, with about 300 members, as the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Almost the same name as the Utah/Brigham
Young faction, except there is no hyphen between “Latter” and “Day.”
There were
other factions (following Granville Hendrick and Alpheus Cutler for example),
and today there are dozens (maybe hundreds) of organizations claiming to be the
legitimate heir to Joseph’s church.
If we
accept that Joseph Smith was a real prophet, and that the Book of Mormon really
is true, that does not necessarily entail the validity of the faction of the
Church as lead by Brigham Young. The third pillar upholding the structure of
the LDS church’s claims is the legitimacy of the claim that Brigham Young’s
faction of the Church is the legitimate, and only legitimate claimant to being
the same church as founded by Joseph Smith.
So we will
take up the question of the succession crisis, and whether the current Utah
based LDS church has a legitimate claim to be that church started by Joseph
Smith in 1830.
A fourth pillar concerns the very
nature of God. The LDS perspective on the nature of God is rather unique. In
the chapter on the nature of God, we will first consider just how different the
LDS conception is as compared to the God of traditional theology. Of course,
pointing out that the different conceptions are dissimilar does not, on its
own, provide grounds for demonstrating the LDS position to be wrong. But
pointing out the differences will highlight some essential characteristics of
the LDS God that make belief in such to be somewhat less plausible.
So we will consider Mormon
Metaphysics. We will address the differences between the LDS God and the God of
traditional theology, and examine the implications for the possible existence
of such a being, and the implications acceptance of this being would have for
moral questions. We will consider the changes in the understanding of the
nature of God that occurred during the formative years of the Church. We will
address the Plan of Salvation, and raise questions about whether it is
reasonable to believe. We will consider the LDS version of dualism, (it is
different from traditional or Cartesian dualism) and ask whether this version
of dualism helps or hinders our understanding of the nature of reality.
One of the central tenets of the
LDS faith is that it is possible to have knowledge regarding such important
questions. Not an opinion, mind you,--not even a belief. But knowledge. LDS persons commonly believe
that they know that they are right,
and those those who subscribe to different faith systems are incorrect. LDS
persons believe that they can know
that God exists, that Joseph Smith was a prophet, that the Book of Mormon is
true, that the current Utah LDS church is God’s one and only true church, etc.
An essential and central key to this essay will be to argue that such knowledge
is not possible.
This question of faith is the heart
of this essay.
If faith is a legitimate way of
knowing, then the quality of all other arguments in this essay become moot. The
reader might counter the arguments with a sentiment like “yes, I know that the
evidence says it is probably not true, but I have faith, and faith is a gift
from God.” The sections on faith will cover questions of belief, logic, and
epistemology, specifically LDS epistemology, but also a general consideration
of the concept of faith. I will try to argue that faith is not a legitimate way
of knowing, and that belief claims based on faith do not meet any minimum
requirements to qualify as knowledge.
In living the faithful life, there
are many aspects that people find to be of value. For example, many people
think that in order to be a properly good and moral person, there has to be an
absolute moral code to which one can subscribe, something that can only come
from God, and that therefore morality requires religion. My case against
religious based morality gets its own chapter.
Many people believe that they are
in need of salvation, and thus in need of religion. A good many honest seekers
of truth long to know the true nature and meaning of life and the universe[56],
and find comfort in the fact that religion offers answers to these metaphysical
questions, answers not dependent on the ever-changing sciences.
And religion offers, for lack of a
better term, a place: it tells you
how and where you fit into the universe. It defines your relation to God. It
offers milestones like baptism, confirmation, weddings, etc., that mark off
your progress along the path of life. And it gives you an extended family in
your community of likeminded believers.
As much as one might find comfort
in these aspects of faith, I will put forth the position that if religions
truth claims are not true, then their comforting quality is not a satisfactory
reason to believe in them. Furthermore, perhaps sadly, the specific benefits
offered by a life of religiosity are largely illusory, so there is less value
in the religious life than the believer might hope. You don’t need religion for
morality. You don’t require salvation. When science and religion conflict,
religion does not fare well.
Losing one’s “place,” however, is
very difficult, especially when one is shunned by family and by ones extended
church family.
The
Unexamined Faith
Socrates (470-399
BCE) is among the most influential thinkers in all of human history. His method
of teaching by asking his students the right questions in such a way that they
figure things out for themselves is an ideal to which many educators aspire.
Not only was he a great thinker and teacher, but his influence is extended by
the fact that one of his students was Plato, and one of Plato’s students was
Aristotle.
Socrates,
as it turns out, was executed for heresy. There were most likely political
motivations, but the actual charge was that he was undermining the state religion
and corrupting the young people.[57] Plato
calls Socrates “The Gadfly” in that he “stings” those that hear him into
action. Socrates had made a bit of a habit of stinging people into questioning
their beliefs. In so doing, they could discover where they had made errors in
judgment, could jettison false beliefs, and have a deeper confidence and appreciation
in what they continued to believe.
After his conviction, Aristotle was
offered some alternatives to death. He could choose between death, exile, and silence.
In rejecting exile and silence, he uttered these immortal words: “The
unexamined life is not worth living for a human.”[58]
Issues of life, freedom, or virtue are so central to human existence that if
one were to live without the possibility of gaining knowledge of truth and
rejecting falsehood, such a life would be unsatisfactory.
It is a strong conclusion to draw,
and this is not the place to consider whether such a strong conclusion is
warranted. I mention it only because the title of this project is an allusion
to Socrates’ sentiment.
As I grew up in the Church, I
always had a sense that understanding the doctrines and practices of the Church
was a positive. Elder Marion D. Hanks sums up my feelings toward knowledge of
the Church perfectly:[59]
No one knows anything about
Christ’s work simply by being born a member of the Church, and often he knows
little about it after years of unmotivated exposure in meetings or classes. He
must learn. And learning involves self-investment and effort. The gospel should
be studied ‘as carefully as any science.
To ask questions was to enhance understanding.
To have doubts offered the possibility of clarification. There were places
where I was mistaken on points of LDS theology, and I would not have discovered
so had I not been willing to ask questions.
The theology of the Church has
changed over the years, and it does so because people ask questions.[60]
That feeling that I had growing up
in the Church, that asking questions and raising doubts was a benefit to my set
of beliefs—I didn’t quite know how to state it. While contemplating a title for
this project and thinking about Socrates it dawned on me that a very similar
sentiment is true in regards to questions of faith. We know that we are going
to mistaken in some of our beliefs. If I sincerely want to believe that my
beliefs are true, I need to be willing to discover where I am mistaken. If I
truly and sincerely want to understand the virtues of faith, the foibles of
faith, the purpose of faith, etc, it is incumbent upon me to examine that
faith.
So to conclude this introductory chapter, I
echo the sentiments of some the great thinkers and leaders of the LDS faith…
Of Brigham Young who says that we
have to see if the faith will stand the test, and if not, that we ought to be grateful
to the person who proves to us that it does not.
Of Orson Pratt who says that those
who can redeem us from errors in doctrine by the use of logic, reason, or
scripture will ever have our pleasing reflections.
Of Hugh B. Brown who reminds that
only error fears freedom of expression; of J. Rueben Clark who asserts that
truth cannot be harmed by investigation, and that “if we have not the truth it ought to be harmed.”[61]
And
of James E Talmage who warns that the individual who cannot listen to criticisms
of his views is intolerant and a fanatic, because one who knows half of a
question is worse off than one who knows nothing of it. And that “No opinion
that cannot stand discussion or criticism is worth holding.”[62]
In my best
Socratic fashion, as a theme for the forthcoming pages, I submit to you, gentle
reader, that the unexamined faith is not worth believing.
Are you
sitting comfortably? Then we’ll begin.
[2] The “First Vision” eventually went on to be
considered the foundational event for
the LDS church. If you are not familiar with the “First Vision” or the fact that there are
multiple versions of it, not to worry, it will be discussed at length.
[4] “Isreal” is a term the LDS use to refer to
themselves.
[5]
Millenial Star, Archive Volume 14, Number 38, Pages 593-595
[8] challenge accepted
[11] Please note, I recognize that the source publication
for the above passage (Orson Pratt’s The Seer) is controversial, and was not
published by the Church, and defenders of the Church criticize critics of the
Church for quoting passages from it. My use in this instance is not to bring up
some controversial doctrine, but strictly for the purposes of illustrating an
intellectual openness and optimistic honesty amongst early Church fathers.
[12]
Brown, H. B. (1988) The Abundant Life: The Memoirs of Hugh B. Brown, ed.
Edwin B. Firmage (Salt Lake City: Signature Books). Pp. 137-139
[13] I say “allegedly” and “quoted as” because I have
never actually seen that phrase in works of Hume. It may be in something I
haven’t read, but as of now I’ve only seen it attributed to him. I suspect that
it may be a misattribution…
[17]
Widtsoe, J. A. (1943). Evidences and Reconciliations: Aids to Faith in a Modern
Day. Salt Lake City, Utah; Bookcraft. pp. 97-101
[18] Quinn, D. M. (1983). J. Reuben Clark: The Church
Years. Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press. p. 24
[19] I shall do my best.
[22]
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
[23] 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
[24] Oaks, D. H. (1985).Reading Church History,” CES
Doctrine and Covenants Symposium, Brigham Young University, 16 Aug. 1985. p. 25
[25]
Anderson, R. D. (1999). Inside the Psychobiography and the Book of Mormon. Mind
of Joseph Smith. Salt Lake City, Utah; Signature Books.
[26] who at the time I write this first draft will be the
next president/prophet of the Church if he outlives President Thomas S. Monson.
At the time of revisions Elder Packer has passed away.
[29]
Packer, B. K. (1993). All Church Coordinating Council Meeting.
http://emp.byui.edu/HUFFR/All%20Church%20Coordinating%20Council--Boyd%20K.%20Packer.htm
[30] I’m sure you are wondering. The other two great dangers
to the Church, according to Packer, are the feminist and gay rights movements.
[31] Journal of Discourses 3:247, March 16, 1856. There ae
some sins that are so bad that Jesus’s atonement doesn’t cover them. Execution,
of a kind requiring shedding of blood, at the hands of the Church, would be necessary.
[32] Off topic, but if we accept this passage at face
value, it seems to say that the mind is not a property of the spirit/soul, but
of something else, presumably the brain. If this is so, it would be interesting
to ask Brother Brigham a follow up question about how our minds remain intact
after death (brain death) and before the resurrection…
[33] interesting to note that the manual is more concerned
with obedience than goodness or righteousness per se…
[34] The
casual observer could be forgiven for suspecting that there is something that
the Church does not want its members to stumble upon…
[35] I will point out differences between the LDS
conception of God and the God of classical theism, and differences between the
LDS Church a broader category of Christianity, but not for the purpose of
arguing that one is wrong and one is right.
[44]
Decker, E. & Hunt, D (1984). The God Makers. Harvest House Publishing.
[46] Anderson, R. D. (1999). Inside the Psychobiography
and the Book of Mormon. Mind of Joseph Smith. Salt Lake City, Utah; Signature
Books. Introduction p. xliii f28
[48] He argued, for example, that in order for our minds
to perceive the way that they do, they must contain built in categories such as time, space, and causation.
[49]
Smith, Joseph Feilding. (1976) Doctrines of Salvation. Salt Lake City:
Bookcraft. Vol 1, p. 188
[56] It’s 42 (apologies if you haven’t read The
Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy).
[60]
Consider the revision of the meaning of the word “Lamanite.” Lamanites were the
principal characters of the Book of Mormon, and were once considered the
ancestors of modern Native Americans to the extent that when I served as a
missionary I served in a Lamanite congregation. But as I write the first draft
of this project, the word “Lamanite” barely been mentioned in Church
publications nor in a talk by a General Authority of the Church since about
2000, and the wording of the introduction to the Book of Mormon has been subtly
changed to reflect a growing realization that the Church does not actually know
what—if anything—constitutes a Lamanite.
[61] Quinn, D. M. (1983). J. Reuben Clark: The Church
Years. Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press. p. 24
No comments:
Post a Comment