Posts Tagged ‘DAMU’
Shades of Grey and relative truth
In 1978, civil war broke out in Nicaragua, just after I left the country. My Mission President went from Costa Rica to Managua to help the missionaries get out of the country. As he was literally leaving the chapel where he had told the missionaries to gather, the Sandinistas came running in from the other door and stopped them.
Demanding to know what side of the conflict they were on, President Muren responded with the phrase, “tonos de gris,” which means shades of grey. He did not stop but kept going right out the door and was able to get that group of Elders out of the country. Gratefully, all the missionaries eventually made it safely out.
Social or Cultural Mormons
Can a person be a member of the LDS faith and not believe some of the doctrine or accept the official story of the history? Absolutely! We call them social or cultural Mormons and there are countless numbers of them within the church. Many of these kinds of members come from multi-generation pioneer LDS families.
If you survey an average congregation in the LDS faith, you will find that there are a surprising number who just don’t care about some of the doctrine and care even less about the history. They are there because it is their family tradition and they derive satisfaction from the social interaction among good people that they know.
Looking for the middle ground
They feel uncomfortable when they hear statements from their leaders that the LDS church is either the kingdom of God or it is nothing. When someone says that Joseph Smith was either God’s prophet or he was a great fraud, they feel unfairly pressured to have to put their view of the man in such black and white terms.
Isn’t there some middle ground where good people can participate in the Mormon faith without having to take sides about Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, the idea of angels visiting Joseph and the concept of priesthood keys and authority? There is so much good in the church. Why does it have to be classified as true?
The American Mormon culture
There are many members of the LDS church who do not fit the stereotypical image of conservative, orthodox, Republican, white-collar, all-American family. The church membership is actually quite diverse, especially as one travels outside the confines of the Intermountain West where the church flourished and is the strongest.
Culturally, as a church and a people, we seem to have become stagnated in the mindset of the 19th century view of Mormonism that still conflicts with the outside world. The church is growing beyond the Mormon corridor but is experiencing a sort of consolidation in the traditional strongholds of the faith – the center of Zion.
The one true church
Many good people who recognize this cultural myopia and parochialism that exists within the LDS faith have expanded their views and horizons beyond the mores and restraints of the traditional, orthodox Mormon worldview. There are so many good people out there that are doing great things to serve their local communities.
Because these progressive thinking people have expanded their views they have come in contact with different ways of thinking about the religious experience and about their own Mormon upbringing. The idea of belonging to the one true church has come to be offensive and difficult, if not impossible to defend in their minds.
God’s chosen people
They see and are embarrassed by what appears to be a contest of right and wrong between our zeal as a missionary church and the good people who are not already a part of the elect kingdom of God. Whereas previously they were uncomfortable with a perceived exclusivist approach, they now are adamant that we are wrong.
We are judgmental, they cry. Why can’t we accept everybody else just the way they are? Why are we trying to convert people when they are already happy and doing much good in their own faith? The idea of rules for membership becomes chafing. Why does the church have such high standards that drive people crazy?
Pointing out the flaws and faults
A large percentage of the LDS membership either does not know or does not care about some of the troubling issues of our early history and growth as a church. It is frustrating to progressive thinkers that so many within the faith are not as well versed as they are on these issues and the supposed quandaries that they present.
So they become more vocal and strident in pointing out the flaws and faults of the church and its leaders, both historical and current. Their frustration increases when their audience either shrugs its collective shoulders or ignores their efforts to educate them on the problems that they see in the church. How can they not care?
Many faithful members do know
While there are many who don’t know and don’t care, there are just as many who are very knowledgeable in the issues and problems that are troublesome to our liberal minded members. It’s just that we have found answers within our own hearts and minds many years ago that satisfy the potential cognitive dissonance.
We quietly go about our lives, secure and confident in the knowledge that we have found answers for the most important elements of our faith. We invite others to taste of the peace that comes from knowing that there are answers and that there are many solid and bedrock truths upon which we can build our lives and our faith.
Raise a warning voice
For some reason, when we try to share our certainty about the truths we have found, we are sometimes misunderstood to be arrogant or presenting our faith as superior or more complete than theirs. Yes, if you invite someone to share in your happiness then you are presenting what you have found to be of great worth.
This is a difficult task to perform. We are commanded to raise our voices to let the world know of the events pertaining to the founding of our church. We have been asked to be bold in declaring that God has called prophets in our day and that he has sent angels to ordain and teach truths that have long been lost from the world.
Some truths are not relative
And thus we arrive at the heart of the conflict between orthodox conservative Mormons and progressive liberal Mormons. What is truth? Can one say with any degree of certainty that they have found the best and most complete source of truth without excluding the many other sources of truth that are found in the world?
Truth is reality. Some kinds of truth can only be received through revelation. I have never seen God or Jesus. I was not there when Joseph received the First Vision. So for me to be able to know those facts, they have to be revealed to me by the Holy Ghost. Some truths are either revealed of God or they remain unknown.
Truths received by revelation
The five pillars of the LDS testimony require revelation: God lives, Jesus is the Christ, the Savior called Joseph as a prophet, the Book of Mormon was brought forth by the gift and power of God and the church that Joseph established is authorized of God to administer the ordinances of salvation that God requires.
Without revelation from the Holy Ghost we can’t say that we know these things. It’s just not logical. I have studied the Book of Mormon and the Church that claims to be God’s only church authorized to administer the ordinances of salvation. With revelation from the Holy Ghost I can say I know they are what they claim to be.
Summary and conclusion
In some things in life, it is wise to take a position characterized by my Mission President’s response to the Sandinistas – shades of grey. We do not always know all the facts of some situations and should withhold judgment until a later time. However, in some critical matters, we must take a position and know for ourselves.
It takes work and determination to obtain knowledge about the five pillars of an LDS testimony. But I, and millions of others over the years, can say with great certainty that God does reveal knowledge about himself and his prophets to those who diligently seek it. This revealed knowledge does not come in shades of grey.
There is no middle ground
In the priesthood session of the April 2003 General Conference, President Hinckley delivered a landmark address on the subject of loyalty. In his remarks he said, “Each of us has to face the truth of the matter—either the church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the Church and kingdom of God or it is nothing.”
An earlier prophet, Joseph Fielding Smith wrote something similar in the Doctrines of Salvation: “Mormonism, as it is called, must stand 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.”
There can be no gray area
Referring to the historical events of the area around Palmyra, New York, President Hinckley said: “They either happened or they did not. There can be no gray area, no middle ground.” In a similar manner, Apostle Joseph B. Wirthlin said, “Joseph Smith must be accepted either as a prophet of God or else as a charlatan of the first order.”
President Benson endorsed this all or nothing view. He said, “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.”
They were all wrong
Such black and white statements go all the way back to the beginnings of the LDS church. When the prophet Joseph asked God which church he should join, he “was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong.” If all the churches of Joseph’s day were wrong, what does that say about the numerous churches of our day?
The Lord later said to Joseph in Section one of the Doctrine and Covenants that the church Joseph organized was “the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth.” If you look, you can find dozens of similar statements by prophets and apostles throughout the history of our church, all very bold in their declarations.
Divisive and exclusivist
Of course, statements like these are labeled divisive and exclusivist by many people outside our church, but also, increasingly by members on the fringe of the church, also known as the disaffected Mormon underground. The DAMU is nothing new. There have been cultural Mormons and Jack Mormons throughout the history of our church.
Of all the objections to the church that I have encountered over the past few years I have been blogging, this one seems to be the most common and the most offensive. For some, it is an extremely difficult proposition to accept this black or white, all or nothing approach to truth in religion. I have spent considerable time pondering why this is so.
Good and truth in all religions
Joseph Smith taught that we accept truth from whatever source it may come. Joseph F. Smith said, “We are willing to receive all truth, from whatever source it may come; for truth will stand, truth will endure…” Modern prophets have said that there is much good and truth in all churches and religions. This statement doesn’t seem too limiting.
President Hinckley: “We recognize the good in all churches. We recognize the value of religion generally. We say to everyone: live the teachings which you have received from your church. We invite you to come and learn from us, to see if we can add to those teachings and enhance your life and your understanding of things sacred and divine.”
Something unique to add
What can the LDS faith add that is unique and will bless the lives of those who accept its teachings? The most unique thing we offer can be found in the temples. It is the sealing power that is exercised to unite families in an eternal bond that will remain in effect after this life is over. That is an amazing claim that no other church can make.
We teach that the sealing power is a part of the priesthood authority that we claim was delivered to Joseph Smith via angelic messengers. I don’t know of any other church that asserts that angels have come and ordained their leaders or conferred upon them keys and powers that will bind on earth and in heaven. That is a fantastic declaration!
Our eternal nature
The older I get, the more important that claim becomes to me. If I know nothing else, I know that there is a spiritual side of my existence. I have had too many experiences of a spiritual nature that have helped me to understand this truth. Others may claim that there is nothing more to man than skin, muscle and bones, but I believe differently.
Because of that very basic and core fundamental belief about myself, I am concerned about what my purpose is in life and what happens after death. I am so grateful to be a part of a community of faith, a church that believes as I do that life is eternal and that what we do with our lives will have a significant impact on the quality of life hereafter.
Importance of the temples
That belief in life eternal is not unique, but the idea that we can do something to ensure that the relationships we enjoy here continue in the hereafter is very unique indeed. I have had dialog with visitors to my blog who claim that God would never be so mean as to separate a loving couple who cherished and served each other all their mortal lives.
I’m not going to point you to any statements from church leaders that teach otherwise but I will say this: before you go making claims about how God should behave, you might want to be absolutely sure of what God has said on the subject. I can’t think of anything about which I would want to be surer. My eternal happiness depends on it.
Book of Mormon is still the key
Back to the point of the essay and why prophets have said that there can be no middle ground when it comes to things like authority and revelation and Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. My mother, who was a convert to the church, once said to me that as an investigator, she could accept everything about it except the Book of Mormon.
It wasn’t until much later in life when she took an Institute class on the subject that she really began to understand just how important it is to our claims of divine origin. I love the fact that we do not have the plates to “prove” the historicity of the book. Prophets have taught that the Book of Mormon is a great sifter of those who are honest in heart.
The power of a divine witness
I know there are those who have said that they have tried and failed to obtain a witness of the veracity of the Book of Mormon. I have had dialog with people both inside and outside the church who have struggled with this. I confess that I cannot offer a perfect empathy because I received a witness of the truthfulness of the book many years ago.
Because of that divine manifestation to me, not just once but on several occasions, I have never doubted the Book of Mormon, or the claims of the prophet Joseph Smith. I understand why the prophets have said that the Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion and why our claims of divinity rest upon the veracity of that book. I also agree with the statement that the strength of this church is in the testimony of each member.
The promise of personal revelation
One of my evangelical visitors once called this security that I feel, the Mormon bubble. He says it is not logical but it makes perfect sense to me. You can throw out all kinds of arguments about the Book of Abraham, Polyandry, Post-manifesto plural marriage, the Kinderhook Plates or any one a few dozen other things that can be found on the Internet.
None of them bothered me when I first learned about them and none of them do now. I have written essays on dozens of these objections and have come to the conclusion that they really aren’t the real problem with why people doubt or leave the church. In my opinion, those who struggle with these doubts have not received personal revelation.
Summary and conclusion
I know that a testimony is a very sacred and personal subject. I also know that making a generalization like I just did will bring all kinds of protests. But I stand by it as truth. If a man has received a witness from God that the Book of Mormon is true then God has a responsibility to help that man as he goes through the ensuing trials of that testimony.
I know that God will help the honest in heart keep their testimonies strong and vibrant. If we study we are going to find out things that will test our witness. We will then have the opportunity to strengthen and deepen it. That’s what opposition is for. We do not have to wallow in doubt. But those who doubt are welcome while they work things out.
A different kind of knowledge
I could have sworn that I already wrote this essay but realized after some digging that the main points were developed as part of a long dialog with my Evangelical friend in the comments section of several of my early articles. I also thought about entitling this, “Why we say ‘I know’ and not ‘I believe’,” but I’m not sure that it fully describes what I want to cover in this post.
The main thesis for my essay can be taken from a story about tasting salt and this statement from Boyd K. Packer: “My friend, spiritually speaking, I have tasted salt. I am no more able to convey to you in words how this knowledge has come than you are to tell me what salt tastes like.” You would have to read “The Candle of the Lord” again to get the background if you don’t recall it.
The bearing of testimonies
A huge bone of contention and point of offense with some within the church is the fact that we get up each Fast Sunday and say to each other, “I know the church is true. I know the Book of Mormon is the word of God. I know that Joseph Smith was a prophet. I know that Thomas S. Monson is a prophet today” and various other statements that start with the phrase “I know…”
They especially cite the practice of little children at the podium with a parent or sibling standing behind the child whispering the above phrases in their ear for the child to repeat out loud. If you have been to an LDS Sacrament service on the first Sunday of the month you know what I am talking about. Having grown up in the church this little ritual does not seem at all strange to me.
Direction from the Brethren
However, apparently enough people thought it wrong that the Brethren issued a letter to be read in all wards advising that little children practice their testimonies at home or in Primary classes instead of at the pulpit in fast and testimony meeting. Even though this was issued more then five years ago, the practice continues and so it bears re-reading by bishoprics on a regular basis.
To quote: “It may be best to have younger children learn to share their testimonies in settings such as family home evening or when giving talks in Primary until they are old enough to do so unassisted in a fast and testimony meeting.” Yes, little children can and do feel the spirit of the Lord bearing witness to their souls of the truth but learning to express it may take some time.
Brainwashing or groupthink
But it’s not just the children’s testimoniesthat bother some within the church. It is the idea of saying, “I know” that such and such a thing is true when logically, they cannot possibly know of the veracity of historical events because they weren’t there. To these people, a thanktimony or a travelogue is preferable to hear rather than to have someone say that “they know” something.
Let’s investigate that. The claim is brainwashing or group thinking without any real thought as to what is actually being said. Is there any validity to this claim? Of course there is. You and I have both seen people get up to the pulpit and just repeat what they have heard other people say without sensing any depth of meaning behind what they are saying. What do they really know?
Discovering a testimony
And yet, consider that President Packer taught us that “a testimony is to be found in the bearing of it.” Isn’t it possible that when our children and youth get up there and say what comes into their hearts that they are entitled to receive revelation that what they are saying is good and true? It is my personal experience, shared in a previous essay that knowledge can be obtained like this.
Growing up in the church, we are taught in Primary and Sunday school all the basics we need to know to form a foundational testimony of the goodness and truthfulness of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. I am a product of this system of indoctrination and training. I can tell you from my own experience that it works, or at least that it worked for me to a certain point in my young life.
A testimony must grow
I believe that most people who grow up in the church come to a point in their lives where they must advance beyond the basic testimony of their youth. I also believe that the many natural circumstances of life will require us to make decisions about our testimonies that can be hard and perhaps even painful. In my opinion, it is the same process through which a convert must pass.
In other words, the testimony of the youth obtained from repeating what was heard from others, is going to be tested and tried. Was that childish testimony invalid? No, a testimony obtained as a child is sweet and innocent and pure. It is valid and real but does not have the depth to sustain us as we move through our lives into a world that challenges such innocent testimonies as naïve.
The influence of leaders
Unfortunately, it is about this point that some of our young people in the church struggle with the transition to the kind of testimony that can weather the storm of adversity and opposition. That’s where a good seminary or institute teacher can make a real difference in the lives of our youth. For me, it was a scout advisor and counselor in a bishopric who helped me make that transition.
I knew that Jim Mortensen cared about me because of his sacrifice of time in going with us on scout trips and other activities. Although I had heard him share his testimony before, I took an occasion to ask him point blank in a private setting to tell me how he knew the church was true. I know I surprised him, but I will never forget the depth of his sincerity or the spirit that I felt.
A powerful example
Even though Jim came to church alone because his wife didn’t feel comfortable there, he was always cheerful and friendly. I knew that his testimony gave him strength but wanted to know how he knew that it was true. He answered by asking if he could bear his testimony first. “Of course”, I said and he did. I was not prepared for the power of what I felt as he spoke slowly.
When he finished we both had tears in our eyes. “You see, Tim,” he said, “every time I bear my testimony it is strengthened. Every time I tell someone else that I know it is true, I feel it deep in my heart. It is not simply an emotional response, but a deep conviction. Now do you understand how I know?” I did understand and made it my goal to follow his example throughout my life.
Strengthened by sharing
As I have served in the church over the years as a missionary and as a leader in wards and stakes I have always cherished the opportunities to teach the gospeland to share my testimony. My friend Jim Mortensen instilled in me a desire to do so because I knew that as I bore my testimony to others that it would be strengthened and I would be blessed. I am so grateful for his example.
I hope this story from my youth illustrates a concept that is hard for many people to understand. Here is the idea: There are more ways to receive knowledge than exclusively through the five senses of the human body. We can receive knowledge directly from God, through the spirit of the Lord speaking directly to our spirit. This kind of knowledge is real and very powerful.
Revelation is the source
A valid testimony will always claim revelation as its source. The things of God are known by revelation and in no other way. It is one thing to be able to say, “I believe, I think, I hope that the gospel is true,” but it requires personal revelation from the spirit of the Lord to declare, “I know that the Church is true.” There is simply no other way. We must experience revelation.
We can say that we know the church is true by the power of the Holy Ghost and in no other way. It is not through reason, logic, or the philosophies of men or the theories of the world, although these can help to explain it after the receipt. A testimony of the gospel is received when the Holy Spirit speaks to the spirit within us. It comes with calm, unwavering certainty into our hearts.
Summary and conclusion
We should have the courage to say “I know.” Some may think this is a trite expression, but “I know” remains a powerful and moving phrase when spoken with sincere conviction. We should say “I believe” if, in fact, we only believe and do not yet know for sure. We should strive for the day when we can say that we know, having received that knowledge from the spirit of the Lord.
Telling stories, expressing gratitude, admitting that we have testimonies, or saying that we only believe are not the same as saying that we know. We can know for ourselves and we should know, but that knowledge comes only on the Lord’s terms. It is received by revelation and not by reasoning or logic. Once received, we can then say, “I know,” with conviction and mean it.
For more information:
1. Testimony, Elder Dallin H. Oaks, Ensign May 2008
2. Topical guide reference to Testimony with scriptures
3. I had questions, Elder John U. Teh of the Seventy
4. Testimony as a process, Elder Carlos A. Godoy
5. Testimony, in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism
Spiritual experiences as a foundation for faith
I have been intrigued by Blake Ostler’s 2007 FAIR conference presentation entitled, “Spiritual Experiences as the Basis for Belief and Commitment.” I have read it several times and have decided that Blake is on to something that I would like to develop further. As you can see I have modified his title a little bit for use in my essay. I highly recommend you read his essay first.
I’m going to focus on two points he made as he was answering questions towards the end of the presentation. The first is this: “Memory, and what we do, is changed every time we think about it and remember it.” The second is this: “All logic is ex post facto to prove what we already feel is true.” Keep those points in mind as I advance some ideas on my experience with revelation.
Youthful revelatory experiences
Like Blake, I had some remarkable revelatory experiences when I was young that impressed me at the time but have impressed me even more as I have pondered and remembered them over the years. I have written about them previously, but will list them here to provide some background. Don’t think that these sacred events were easily obtained or casually absorbed. They weren’t.
I was taught and believe that we cannot live on borrowed light. Throughout my Seminary and Institute experience, I must have heard dozens of lessons on how vitally important it is to obtain our own witness of the spirit in order to remain committed to the church and the gospel in later years. My teachers taught me and the spirit confirmed that I could receive personal revelation.
Foundational spiritual events
The first revelatory experience to which I’ll refer was obtained while I was a student at BYU Idaho. I was seventeen years old and very immature but very impressed with a testimony I had heard that week from an Apostle of the Lord. That weekend in my room I prayed fervently for many hours to know for myself that what he had said was true and important for me in my life.
The next impressive spiritual event in the development of my testimony was the next year when I was eighteen years old and preparing myself to serve a mission. I have also shared this one in a previous essay. The experience was equally as impressive as the first one though it was perhaps deeper in meaning and implication. These are part of my early foundational spiritual memories.
Deep impact on my faith
These were not my only youthful revelatory experiences. I have recorded several others in my journals that came almost unbidden during the years before my mission. Although I received them as a result of prayer, the effort was not as intense. In other words, I did not pray for many hours or fast for days to obtain the other experiences. Nevertheless, they were just as powerful.
Because of these events, I was able to go through the difficult and rigorous experience of serving as a missionary without looking back and wondering why I decided to sacrifice like that for two years. I had these sacred memories burning in my heart and being added unto with additional everyday assurances from the Lord that I was engaged in his work and that he was appreciative.
Working with imperfect people
Life marches on. An education is obtained, a marriage is solemnized in the temple, a family is raised and increasing responsibilities in a career and in the church are rewarding and fulfilling. As sometimes happens, I begin to learn things about my faith, and especially about the people in it that are at first disturbing and then disappointing. I experience some logical inconsistencies.
Cognitive dissonance can be a painful experience when it includes people from our world who are in authoritative positions. For example, a beloved bishop from my youth became inactive after he was released. How could this happen? He represented the Lord to me in interviews that I held sacred. He helped me resolve several youthful problems and encouraged me to be faithful.
Imperfections even at high levels
Another bishop from my youth is disciplined after fiscal improprieties in his business dealings are revealed. I learn of divorces of people whom I admired, some of whom were influential in my youth. I then begin to learn of difficulties in higher levels of the church – stake presidents who lose their testimonies and announce to their congregations that they are leaving the faith.
A promising general authority is excommunicated for breaking the law of chastity. I discover that an apostle was excommunicated for this very same reason less than forty years earlier. How is this possible – a modern apostle excommunicated? I can understand it happening in the early days of the church but not in our day and age. These are men of God. Tell me this wasn’t so!
Sacred things exposed and mocked
I discovered that a former ordinance worker in the temple had recorded the temple ceremony and then published it. How could he do that? I hold the temple sacred and have enjoyed so many wonderful experiences there over the years. What could cause him to lose his faith and reveal something that means so much to me? Did he never have any spiritual experiences of his own?
From the earliest days of the church there have been those who have not been impressed with the sacred nature of the temple and have exposed things that they have covenanted to keep sacred. In our day there are those who claim to have received the second anointing and then describe it on the message boards of those who hate the church. Something’s not right with this picture.
Not all members receive revelation
I used to think that everybody in the church had spiritual experiences similar to those I enjoyed in my youth. Over the years, I have come to realize that this is not the case. Can that be true even for those who have served as bishops, stake presidents or even general authorities? In my opinion, yes – personal experience has shown this to be so. Not all members receive revelation.
That has been an amazing thing for me to contemplate. Was I just extremely lucky or blessed to believe that I could receive revelation when I was so young? Several visitors to my blog over the years have tried to convince me that I did not receive revelation. They have suggested that what I experienced was a form of self-hypnosis, or simply the effect of a frenzied, emotional state.
Memories can be enlarged
Back to Blake’s two points, memory first. I have come to realize that although my early spiritual experiences occurred nearly thirty-five years ago, they are clearer in my mind now then when I first experienced them. The combination of pondering them and writing about them has helped me to understand that there was much more detail in the experiences than what I first thought.
As Blake pointed out in his essay, this helps me to understand why Joseph Smith could recount the same First Vision experience differently in each of the accounts he relates over the years. I was so focused on determining my own standing before God in my first youthful manifestation that I had overlooked how deeply and powerfully the Lord spoke to me about missionary labors.
How to explain all this
Blake’s second point was that all logic is created to prove what we already feel is true. I have had prima facia experiences that overrule any logical inconsistencies I have encountered in what I have learned about the history and people of this church as I have studied it in more depth. In effect, I have not really experienced cognitive dissonance at all because the spiritual trumps logical.
Let me restate that. My spiritual revelatory experiences with the Holy Ghost early in my life have proven to be so powerful that it seems that no matter what kind of troubling things I may learn about the men who run or have run this church, I feel inoculated and immune to their effect. My evangelical friends call this “living in the protective Mormon bubble of a testimony.”
Summary and conclusion
My experiences with the Holy Ghost are not going to be the same as yours. They may be similar or they may be completely different. For me, these revelatory events in my youth have provided a foundation for my experiences in this church thus far. I have encountered much imperfection and weakness in the men who run it, but the spiritual witnesses of my life have protected me.
The bottom line is that I continue to believe that the LDS Church is what it claims to be when it was setup through the prophet Joseph Smith in 1830. The simple fact is that we can know this for ourselves through revelatory encounters with the Holy Ghost. No matter what negative things I discover, nothing can overcome the strength of that personal witness if I remain worthy.
——————————————————
Note about the illustration: This artist’s conception of Joseph translating the Book of Mormon is one that is highly criticized by some members of the church. They feel it is disingenuous because it does not show Joseph using the seer stones in the hat. It also shows the plates in plain view of Oliver which was not the case. Joseph was not to show them to anyone unless commanded of the Lord.
General Authority training – advanced subjects
You’ve been active and faithful in the church all your life and have a deep and abiding testimony of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. You have enjoyed success and found great joy in helping others come to a knowledge of the Lord through your missionary labors. You’re proven to be a gifted administrator in the priesthood. You love to study the scriptures and to teach the gospel.
Responding to difficult questions
The Brethren have decided that all potential General Authorities must now take some additional classes prior to receiving the call. While we are a lay ministry, it is important that those who are called into positions that represent the church have skills developed in responding to difficult questions. You know the ones I’m talking about. President Hinckley was asked some of them.
Since you are on that potential General Authority list, you have been selected to participate in this class. In order to ensure that the training is effective, we have selected some real-world examples of the kind of questions you can expect to encounter. While you may have had no experience in studying church history, you will most certainly be asked questions like these.
The really hard list
1. Joseph Smith polygamy and polyandry – why didn’t we know about this?
2. Book of Mormon translation – Peep stone in a hat vs. Urim & Thummim
3. Why are there multiple versions of Joseph Smith’s First Vision story?
4. Why did the three witnesses of the Book of Mormon leave the church?
5. Why is there no real archeological evidence for the Book of Mormon?
6. DNA evidence proved that American Indians have no Israelite blood.
7. Egyptian scholars have proven that the Book of Abraham is a fraud.
8. Did Joseph Smith take the Temple ceremony from the Masons?
9. Could a real prophet have been deceived by the Kinderhook plates?
10. That is so exclusionary of us to claim to be the only true church.
11. Did Brigham Young teach that Adam was God and if so, why?
12. Do we currently teach that God was once a man like we are?
13. How can we really believe that man can become a God?
14. How could the Mountain Meadows Massacre have happened?
15. Why did the church practice polygamy after the 1890 manifesto?
16. Your church seems racist. Why delay giving priesthood to blacks?
17. Why did President Hinckley deny that we teach long-held doctrines?
18. How was President Hinckley deceived by the Mark Hoffman forgeries?
19. Why do Mormons believe that Lucifer and Jesus Christ are brothers?
20. There are documented cases of spiritual abuse by priesthood leaders.
21. Why is the church opposed to work of LDS scholars and intellectuals?
22. Why did the church cover up President Benson’s Alzheimer’s disease?
23. How can the true Church of Jesus Christ reject those who are gay?
24. Why has church growth stopped in the U.S. – baptisms decreasing?
25. How can the LDS claim to be the true church with so few members?
Effect of the questions
These are legitimate questions raised over the years that can be found today all over the Internet. Many of our young people are asked these questions by their friends on a regular basis. They are not being malicious or trying to cause problems. They simply want answers. Even though they are difficult questions, some have studied them out in an effort to be able to provide the answers.
Sometimes they have discovered that even long-time members have never heard these questions. They have been told by well-meaning leaders to just pray about it and they will get their answers. But there is so much confusing information out there and no official LDS source that addresses these questions that they become discouraged and begin to doubt their testimonies of the church.
Rules of engagement
Your assignment as a new General Authority is to address these questions in a manner that builds faith and encourages continued study. You must not act surprised if you have never heard any of these questions before or don’t understand why they seem so important to those who are asking. And you certainly don’t want to be dismissive of those who are bothered by these questions.
You must not defer them to others, claiming that “we have apologists who answer this stuff for us.” That won’t cut it. You’re now a General Authority and need to know the answers yourself. Yes, it’s true that most members of the church have never heard these questions and don’t know that these are issues for some. And yes, some members would be shocked to learn about all this.
The challenge
So your challenge is great. How do you answer these questions without causing confusion or doubt among the faithful members who do not question? How do you respond to the one as the Savior taught? Those who struggle with these questions are a relatively small number and yet they are very active on the Internet, where many people seek information on the church today.
At the same time, focusing on these questions and taking the time to research them, understand them and to be able to explain them is time consuming. It takes away from one of the primary missions of the church to declare the gospel. And yet, it fulfills another part of that mission by perfecting the saints. Most of these questions are raised by disaffected and former members.
A possible response
It seems that we have failed a generation of bright and intelligent young people who have grown up on the Internet. We did not anticipate what this amazing communication medium could do to supply facts and details about our history and doctrine. It’s not that we’ve been purposely trying to hide anything from you. It’s just that you have been exposed to stuff earlier than we figured.
We wish it had been otherwise. We would have preferred that you had knowledgeable mentors to guide you through your discovery of all these difficult issues. We were aware of them and decided not to share them or at least not promote discussion of them in the church curriculum. We are seeing now that this may have been a mistake. It was not our intention to deceive you.
Personal responsibility
We understand that many of you have felt shocked and betrayed when you first learn about these things. Please don’t lose faith in the entire church teaching system that has brought you to the point you are now. We should have found a way to inoculate you before you encountered these troublesome issues but were concerned that exposing you to them early could also be disastrous.
Please accept our apologies for not teaching you about these things in a more open and honest manner. We accept the responsibility for our failings in this area and will work harder in the future to ensure that the upcoming generation does not have to suffer what you went through. But we hope that you will also be just as responsible for your own church history education.
Summary and conclusion
This is obviously just a thought exercise. Please don’t seriously think that my ponderings here have anything to do with the reality of the way the church is responding to this problem. You may legitimately wonder if some leaders in the church are even aware that this problem exists. Perhaps those that are aware feel just as frustrated as you that we don’t address it more openly.
For those that have struggled or are struggling with questions like those I have listed, please be aware that there are many thousands of us who have faced and answered the same questions. We recognize their potential impact to destroy faith, but have found that God is faithful and will send peace to the troubled heart. Sometimes satisfactory answers will only come over the test of time.
Smoothing down that Rough Stone Rolling
I have been listening again to John Dehlin’s interviews with Richard Bushman on my iPod on the days that I travel to the office. Thanks again John, for bringing the archives back. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: those podcasts are now an invaluable part of history. I’ve enjoyed each one and have listened to some of them multiple times, including the Bushman interviews.
I have also been re-reading Rough Stone Rolling, especially the early chapters dealing with the First Vision, the visit of the angel Moroni and the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. I have thought deeply about this fascinating part of our early LDS history but John’s probing questions to Richard Bushman have got me thinking again about several of these rather complex issues.
The difficult questions of history
If you’re a student of our history then you know what the questions are and have most likely formulated your own answers long ago. I know I have. Through my blogging activities of the past couple of years I have been able to present my own answers to many of those more difficult questions. I have also been called on to defend my answers by those who don’t agree with them.
Here are just a few of those issues I have blogged about: multiple versions of the First Vision, God is an exalted man, God has a body of flesh and bone, the seer stone in the hat, objections to the Book of Abraham, the burning of the bosom, Joseph Smith was a Mason, plural wives of Joseph Smith, the new Mormon history, the only true and living church and Mountain Meadows.
Not taught in the classroom
As I’ve written in several of my blog posts of the past, I feel very blessed and grateful that I had an advantage that many who have studied our history did not have. I was exposed to almost all of the troublesome issues early in life and had come to understand even in High School that what is taught in the LDS classroom does not always tell the whole story of what really happened.
From the time I was fifteen I realized that there are some issues that are not taught in depth in our Sunday Schools, Seminaries and Institutes and certainly are not brought up from the pulpit. This was not a problem for me. I learned about the rest of the story by reading books that my mother provided for us in the family library. Although a convert, mother loved our unique LDS history.
Information from other sources
I hope John doesn’t mind, but I think his story is illustrative of what has happened to many of our young people in the church who have discovered at a later point in their lives things they didn’t know about our history. After the shock wore off, a feeling of betrayal replaced it. As John said, this feeling came because they loved and trusted the church too much, not too little.
In John’s case, he discovered many of these troublesome issues when he was called on to teach seminary. He studied the material in great depth in order to be prepared as he taught. He also supplemented his study of the official CES material with what he discovered on the Internet. And there is the big difference between my experience with this difficult material and John’s.
Learning Mormon history
You can learn more about the issues that trouble some of our members and investigators through a simple Google search than I could through many years of reading selected books provided by my mother. However, what you usually find on the Internet is someone’s interpretation of what they read and very little original research. That can taint the way you learn Mormon history
From mother’s library, I read books like No Man Knows my History by Fawn Brodie, Family Kingdom and the Kingdom or Nothing by Samuel Taylor, Great Basin Kingdom by Leonard Arrington and Joseph Smith, the First Mormon by Donna Hill. We also had the History of the Church and the Journal of Discourses in our home library in which I looked things up.
Learn details of history in personal study
My point is that I had the luxury of slowly reading one of these historical books, discussing what I had learned with my mother and then pondering why I had not learned these kind of details in my seminary classes. I came to the conclusion that there just wasn’t enough time to bring up in that 50 minute early morning Seminary class some of the more interesting stuff that I had read.
Having taught Seminary later in life, I have been impressed with the clear direction from CES that we are not to teach some of the more complex and difficult parts of our history. I think I can understand why and in fact, agree with this direction to teach our history in a manner that is both uplifting and faith-promoting. But leaving major parts of it out can cause problems for some.
It is human nature to discuss
One of the methods of those who are opposed to the work of the LDS Church is to present us with shocking statements about our faith, our beliefs or our history and then to accuse us of not wanting to accept the truth. It doesn’t matter how we respond – shock, indignation, dismay, anger, or even kindness, their desire is not to help us understand the truth but to destroy our faith.
That’s the problem with researching the church on the Internet. It’s common to want to discuss our new discoveries with others. That’s how we solidify our understanding – by sharing things with others and evaluating their response. Our young people turn to online discussion groups or forums because many of the older members of the church have never learned about these things.
True believing Mormons who know
Unfortunately, it is rare to find someone online who knows our history well and has no problem with the more difficult parts of that history. In fact, it is rare to find someone in your own circle of contacts who really knows our history. We are a church of lay leadership. There is simply no requirement that you know the history, only that you believe, are worthy and want to help others.
That’s why John’s interview with Dr. Bushman is so helpful to those who are struggling with understanding and accepting all the warts and imperfections of our history. Rough Stone Rolling is a great resource that tells our story without trying to whitewash it or cover anything up. Dr. Bushman is careful to provide the complete story with contemporary sources from that time.
A safe place to discuss our history
I don’t know if John has found the answer to what I feel was his best question. He asked, “Where can we go to find a safe forum in which to discuss our history?” In my experience, Sunstone is not the place. I think they tried forums but they didn’t take off. And the Mormon History Association has wonderful conferences and publications, but no online forums.
There are a plethora of online forums to which we can turn to discuss the church. I have listed them in a previous essay. You just have to choose what level of moderation you are going to accept. Some strive to keep the disaffected Mormons out, but what if you are simply going through a temporary crisis of faith? Who can you trust to guide you through your explorations?
Summary and conclusion
The Internet has done amazing things for the church. It has helped us share the message of the restoration in a way that allows us to reach millions, even billions with the story of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. It allows us to present our faith, our doctrine and our history in a manner that is faith-promoting and uplifting. That has been my objective in the essays I write.
John prepared and shared a wonderful presentation on how to stay in the church in spite of the loss of faith. I highly recommend it to all, no matter what your current level of belief. An updated version is available at the staylds forums, which I missed when I compiled my list of LDS-related forums. Thanks to John Dehlin for his work in helping those with a crisis of faith.
A Website for the Average Mormon
with 6 comments
I am by no means a scholar or intellectual. I think I’m pretty smart and that I’m pretty good with logic. After all, I have made a living for thirty years demystifying computers for others. But I know there are a lot of people out there who are smarter than I am and who have the academic credentials to prove it. I like to think that I’m just a regular, average, typical Latter-day Saint.
I like smart, thinking people and especially people who present logical conclusions well, either in writing or verbally. Critical thinking is a skill that I am constantly striving to improve. I confess that I am impressed when someone can speak or write with confidence, especially when it comes to doctrines and practices of the church. That’s why I continue to take college classes each year.
Choosing to believe
But I’d like to take exception with one of the common threads I find in the essays on sites like MormonThink.com. It has to do with choosing to believe. The concept of voluntary or involuntary belief has been discussed by philosophers for millennia. But it’s such a basic part of how I deal with the sort of intellectual issues on Mormon Think that I want to share it with you.
I disagree with those who contend that beliefs are not voluntary acts of will. There is no doubt in my mind that I am a voluntarist when it comes to my beliefs about the church and our history. This is especially true in light of, or in spite of all the fascinating historical facts that I have read over the years that are just not taught to or even known by the majority of the Latter-day Saints.
Invariably I have found that those who label themselves atheists also claim to be involuntarists. I am coming to the conclusion that those who embrace the title of Ex Mormon, Post Mormon or Former Mormon also see their position as involuntary. “It was inevitable,” they say, “based on what I have learned, I had no other choice but to now disbelieve what I had formally believed.”
Encouraging Faith
Well, that’s where we differ. I have spent many years studying the same material that has been so troubling and bothersome to so many of my fellow seekers of knowledge. I can honestly say that my faith has been strengthened and my belief deepened that Joseph was who he claimed to be – a prophet of God – and that the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be – Holy Scripture.
I have no doubt that there are many in the church, who, if they studied the same material we have written about on our blogs and websites, would be absolutely freaked out and would soon leave the church. They are either social Mormons only or are not strong in their desire to know more about the history of our church. I don’t think these kinds of people are your typical Mormons.
What’s missing from sites like MormonThink.com, and what you’ll find in abundance on the official church web sites, is the role of faith, and especially encouraging faith. There is way too much emphasis on the intellect and not enough focus on feelings. The section on Testimony and Spiritual Witness relegates the role of feelings of faith as something to be dissected and derided.
Announcing new website
That’s reason why I decided to start my own website, LatterdayCommentary.com. This blog is hosted on that domain, which I registered years ago. It’s not much to look at today. In fact, I almost consider it a prototype. I’ve put together some commentary and links to my essays on some of the same subjects that you will find on MormonThink.com. It will grow with time.
I know that I’m just one of thousands of LDS members who have a website where they share their beliefs and testimonies of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. I like to think that I’m not much different from your average Mormon. I grew up as a member of the church but I come from a convert family. And my viewpoint is definitely that of a laid-back California boy.
I’ve been happy as a member of the LDS Church all my life. I loved my mission and I love going to the temple. I love General Conference and I love serving in a local Bishopric. I hope you’ll take a look at my website and then come back here and make some suggestions as to how I can make it better and more useful in promoting the doctrines of our LDS faith to the world.
Written by tmalonemcse
April 5, 2010 at 9:28 pm
Posted in Blogging
Tagged with Mormons, Gospel Study, LDS Doctrine, Blogs, Knowledge, Anti-Mormons, Blog promotion, Controversy, Critical thinking, Criticism, DAMU, Disaffected Mormons, Ex-Mormons, Former Mormons, Grant Palmer, Intellectual study, Intellectuals, Latter-day Commentary, LDS Blogging, LDS Web sites, Mormon blogs, Mormon Doctrine, Mormon History, New Order Mormons, Opposition, Post-Mormons, Testimony