John Dehlin shared a post to the ExMormon Reddit forum. Here’s the link to the original post and the replies. He prefaced it:
As of late, I have been spending some time studying the core arguments of several Mormon neo-apologists including Richard Bushman, Terryl and Fiona Givens, Patrick Mason, Thomas McConkie, Spencer Fluhman, Adam Miller, and Phil Barlow.
In an attempt to understand their arguments better, and to distill their arguments into a single document, I have made the following notes. I have tried to convey their writings as accurately, fairly and charitably as possible.
I’d love your feedback.
This may get a bit tedious, but I’ll go through and answer this for myself. I consider myself a Neo-Apologist. My answers will likely be different than Bushman’s who will be different than Givens, etc. That’s one of the main problems with this exercise, is that my view might be logical. And Mason’s might be logical. And Bushman’s and Fluhman’s, and so on. But attempting to harmonize our views together creates an illogical, inconsistent mess. Which this list kind of feels like a little bit.
John’s post is regular font and my answers are bolded.
Why I Remain an Active Member of the Church:
- The LDS Church is imperfect, but all organizations are imperfect. If your standard is perfection, you will never be a member of any organization. Some people expect the church to be 99% divine and 1% human. In reality, the opposite is true. The church is 99% human/flawed. Mostly agree.
- In spite of the weaknesses, there is much good in the LDS Church, and consequently much value in remaining a member (e.g., profound scripture, solid morals, good people, strong community, opportunities to serve, a solid institutional structure) Strongly agree.
- Mormonism is fundamentally Christian, and Christianity (belief in Christ and His teachings) is a good thing. Mormonism connects me to Christ, and helps me be a better Christian. Agree
- Mormonism is a religion, and religions are generally good things to belong to. It is good to believe in God, and it is good to belong to an organization that encourages/nurtures deep spiritual practice. Mostly agree, though it seems empirically obvious that there are bad religions or there are bad implementations of religion.
- Even the bad/difficult/painful things about the LDS Church present opportunities for personal growth and development. hmm not sure I agree with this. I agree with the idea that interacting with people with different viewpoints is a good thing. For example, the person commenting in Sunday School might say something that frustrates me. That’s not necessarily a bad thing and can provide me opportunity for personal growth. But I don’t view all bad/difficult/painful things in the Church as things we are forced to accept. As a Body of Christ, it’s our collective responsibility to identify the bad things and improve them.
- Staying active in the LDS Church gives you power/ability/capital to make things better for those inside (e.g., protect children, support LGBTQ individuals, empower women, combat racism). Agree. That’s not the only reason I stay active, but I think this is a true statement. 100 years from now, there will be a Mormon Church. Will it be much, much better on these issues or a little better or not better at all? I personally think the best way I can affect positive change on this is by staying. But this is not the only or even primary reason I stay.
- Religious differences (exclusive truth claims) are far less important than the principles that unite all religions (e.g., love, kindness, charity, community). Those should be the focus. Agree
- Mormonism does not have a monopoly on truth. The core Mormon principle of “continuing revelation” is an acknowledgment that the church is imperfect, and will continue to change/improve. Things will keep getting better. Agree.
- There are some distinctive Mormon beliefs (e.g., we can become Gods some day) that differentiate us in important ways. Agree. Though I disagree that “we can become Gods (with capital G) some day” is one that is clearly taught and understood and agreed on. There are many distinctive Mormon beliefs and practices. Any one of them might not be super distinctive. But as a whole, they are certainly very unique and differentiates us in important ways.
- We have exclusive authority to perform saving priesthood ordinances. That is one of our most unique contributions to humanity. I personally don’t agree with this bullet point the way it’s presented or what is likely implied in it.
- All of the problems with the church are intentional (by God) – they provide opportunities for faith. If everything was easy and whole and logical and good – there would be no need for faith. Challenge to faith and cognitive dissonance lead to stronger, more mature faith. I strongly disagree with this. Especially in the implications that our historical problems are there for intentional reasons by a God who is testing the faith of members. I bristle at the very idea. It’s absurd to me. I only agree that problems in the Church and in Church history are intentional under the very broad concept that nothing in this world is unintentional.
- All problems with the church are the fault of imperfect men and women. This includes prophets, which have been deeply flawed since the very beginning (Old Testament). Moses killed a man. Noah got drunk. Abraham lied about his wife. Jonah ran away from God. Etc. Agree. But there is probably an implication that I disagree with, ie that prophets are imperfect morally but yet doctrinally they are being tightly managed by God.
- Testimonies should be rooted in Christ, not Joseph Smith. I agree, duh, I don’t think any Mormon wouldn’t agree. But there is an underlying concept here where I’m probably more conservative than other Neo-Apologists or Progressive Mormons. The doctrines and teachings of the LDS Church are the starting place and vocabulary for all LDS to understand God and truth about the universe. It’s clear we are taught that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and perfect example and that we should follow him and emulate him. We don’t talk about Joseph Smith that way. So clearly, we prioritize a testimony of Christ over a testimony of Joseph Smith. But much of what we understand about Jesus Christ comes through Joseph Smith (and other modern prophets), so I would not discount the importance of modern prophets in our base doctrine.
- In all our studies, we’ve never found a “smoking gun.” In fact, our studies have strengthened and deepened our faith. The imperfections are what makes the church rich and beautiful. I’d need to understand more about what is meant by “smoking gun”, but I think most likely “smoking gun” is meant to infer logic and history and science that suggests the Church is not what many Church members think it is. ie BOM is an actual ancient record, the Bible is mostly literally true, through the First Vision and Restoration God restored the ancient church and authority of Christ in a way that is exclusive. If that is meant by “smoking gun”, then I would say the “smoking gun” does exist. If by “smoking gun” it is meant that the Church is not beautiful and true and a valid religion, then I would say that “smoking gun” does not exist.
- Much of our problems with scriptural historicity or prophetic fallibility revolve more around our unrealistic expectations for scripture and prophets. We expect too much from both. Agree. But again, we’d have to have a long conversation about what that means for things like exclusivity, accuracy of absolute doctrine, what a prophet is or should be, etc.
- What it ultimately comes down to:
- I still feel inspired that the Church is good/true, and/or called to remain a part of it.
- The benefits of church membership far outweigh the costs/disadvantages.
- Mormonism has made me a better person, and has made others better too. These are good. I’ll add one more.
- I’m seeking meaning in my life in terms of seeking God and creating a Zion type Heaven on Earth, and the Mormon Church is perfect for me to facilitate this desire for meaning.
Book of Abraham:
- The Book of Abraham is not a translated text. It is a revealed/inspired text.
- This means that Joseph didn’t fully understand what he was doing when he produced the text, but this is ok too. Joseph wasn’t perfect.
- The papyrus was a catalyst for Joseph Smith to receive revelation.
- I see no evidence that Joseph Smith was trying to fool anyone with the Book of Abraham.
- The focus should be on the inspiration that the text brings to people’s lives, not on the text’s origins
I don’t know for sure if Joseph was trying to fool someone or not. I think it’s possible he wasn’t and that he truly thought he was translating Egyptian into English. I also think it’s possible he was participating in a pious fraud. For me it doesn’t matter a lot. Either way, I think Joseph’s revelations could be described better as “Joseph’s best attempt to understand God” than “God’s instructions to Joseph”. The fact that Joseph’s revelations deeply resonated with the early Saints and to this day still deeply resonate with millions of members is an important point. This is not “OK” in the sense that this is a normal process by which God gives specific instructions to man. But it is “OK” in the sense, that this is how religions generally are formed and put together doctrinal teachings that unite the members and give them tools and symbols to connect with God.
Kinderhook Plates:
- This is an example of Joseph being overly exuberant after his experiences with the Book of Abraham. He got carried away. But it was not a conscious fraud.
- Joseph was fooled in this instance, but prophets are imperfect.
- The “translations” never went anywhere. They were never used in any meaningful way. So they don’t really matter.
Same answer as above. Point 3 is immaterial. It wouldn’t matter if the translations did go somewhere to me.
The Book of Mormon:
- No smoking gun condemning the Book of Mormon has ever been discovered. Smoking gun meaning not historical? Yes. Smoking gun meaning not good, true, beautiful, important, inspired scripture? No.
- The Book of Mormon is too powerful, complex/sophisticated, and beautiful for Joseph Smith to have written it on his own. Disagree. Though I do think it’s power, complexity, sophistication, etc is quite remarkable. And I think it’s a valuable point the LDS Church can use in how it markets itself.
- The Book of Mormon is a revelation, not a translation. The plates were not really used, other than as a catalyst for inspiration, much like the papyri with the Book of Abraham. Agree.
- The Book of Mormon contains 19th century content because Joseph’s revelatory process included his own thoughts/feelings/experiences placed into the mix. ALL prophesy is imperfect in this way, and includes the biases of the prophet (who acts as a medium). Agree (but I’m not trying to preserve a literal, ancient record here).
- Some of the flaws in the Book of Mormon can be attributed to errors made by the original authors and editors of the book. It was clearly a complex process to take Hebrew ideas, write them down in Reformed Egyptian, and then to have them abridged by Moroni, and then translated (or revealed) by Joseph. LOTS of human error would have been introduced throughout that process. I don’t take this view at all. I’m not sure how common this is among Neo-Apologists. It’s definitely a prevalent theme among traditional Mormon Apologists.
- As with the Book of Abraham, what’s most important about the Book of Mormon is the content, how it transforms the lives of those who study it, and how it brings people closer to Jesus Christ. Focusing on its origins and historicity completely misses the mark. Agree. However, let’s face it, the origins are important. If it’s literal, then it changes the perspective of how to approach Mormonism. If it’s not, Mormonism is still valid, but it might mean something different (ie exclusivity, etc).
- The book itself acknowledges that it has errors, and is as flawed as the people who brought it into being. Why would we expect it to be more than it claims to be? Disagree with this logic. Kind of a manipulative tactic, imho, if other Neo-Apologists are using this logic.
- Part of the reason the Book of Mormon remains a complex mystery is that God requires us to live by faith, and so the evidence proving the Book of Mormon as true will NEVER be provided, or God’s plan requiring faith will be thwarted. In addition, cognitive dissonance can be an engine for growth/progress/development if engaged. Disagree with this logic. However, if God exists, he certainly doesn’t want to be obvious about it, else why did he create the world in a way that looks just like naturalistic evolution. So, I think there is an important point to understand about God in this related to why he seems hands off in the world.
- Even if the Book of Mormon isn’t historical (or fully historical), beautiful/powerful scripture can be still non-historical (e.g., the Book of Job) Agree
Polygamy/Polyandry:
- Polygamy is definitely unsettling. Especially in the way Joseph practiced it. Joseph definitely misled Emma, the Saints, and the general public in his practice of it. He also sometimes pressured women and their families to practice it, potentially abusing his authority, and employing spiritual coercion. Agree
- In some sense, God put Joseph in a difficult position. He was commanded to practice polygamy, but he rightly feared for his safety/life to be open/honest about it. Disagree. I don’t think God commanded Joseph to practice polygamy.
- God often gave Joseph commandments, but did not clarify how to carry out the commandments. This is how error was introduced. Disagree with this logic, but I do agree with a complimentary idea. I think Joseph might have hit on some ideas that felt strongly confirmed by the Holy Ghost, ie that families are eternal, that marriage relationships should be sealed for eternity, that the human family all needs to be sealed together, etc. And then the next logical extensions of how to implement this were disaster.
- Polygamy could have been a mistake. Polyandry was likely a mistake. But again, prophets are capable of mistakes, even really big ones. This is part of the miracle of the restoration (that God can work through imperfect people), vs. a condemnation of the restoration. Agree, sort of, depending how we define prophet and how tightly, perfectly, and clearly we assume God is working through them.
- Joseph Smith’s Polygamy is not reducible to Joseph’s desire for sexual gratification. Firstly, there are much easier ways to be sexually gratified. Secondly, there was clearly a desire on Joseph’s part to seal families together in one unbroken chain. I think there’s an important reality expressed here. But I also think it’s a bit disingenuous to not acknowledge the sexual gratification aspect. When sex is involved, it’s always at least a little bit about sex.
- In modern times we have a distaste for polygamy, but that is a monogamy bias. Most historical civilizations have been polygamous, and to some extent we unfairly misjudge polygamy due to this monogamy bias. Meh. No.
- Much good came from polygamy, including many high-level church leaders, and many stalwart members. Disagree.
- Joseph’s practice of polygamy should not be “lumped in” with post-Nauvoo polygamy, since Joseph was not practicing domestic polygamy (i.e., living with the women who were his plural wives). Again, Joseph’s focus was on the sealings, not on the raising of families. Not an important distinction.
- In the case of Helen Mar Kimball (14 years old), we can’t place all the blame on Joseph Smith. In her case, it was Helen’s parents who requested that she be married to Joseph Smith. I think it’s difficult to look at these things 150 years ago and think we clearly understand any one case. That’s why Brian Hales and critics argue back and forth, and I don’t think Brian is ever technically wrong on any one given point. But I think the overall picture he seems to imply is completely and utterly wrong. I think many of Joseph’s actions related to polygamy were immoral and not something we should defend.
Joseph Smith’s Character:
- Joseph was flawed, but Biblical prophets were deeply flawed, and in some sense we are all flawed.
- Joseph’s failings/flaws are actually inspiring, because they teach us that God can work with deeply flawed people.
- Joseph Smith did not display the traits of a “con man.” Joseph was rarely (if ever) trying to intentionally fool people.
- In the church we worship Jesus, not Joseph. We celebrate Christmas, not Smithmas.
I think Joseph’s character and motivations is a very complex subject. I’m at peace with the possibility that he committed serious sins, or that he lied, or even that he conned. I do believe he felt called to start a new religion and felt led by God and did the best he could for the most part. But then I’m also fine acknowledging he was a scoundrel if that’s what the evidence suggests. The important thing is the fruit of what Joseph did, which is the Church today.
Racism:
- Prophets and scripture are fallible.
- God allows us to make mistakes.
- We’re doing better. We fixed many of the problems, and will continue to improve.
LGBTQ Issues:
- Have patience. This is another example of where the church is making mistakes, but we are improving, and we will “get it right” in time.
- Difficult options like celibacy and mixed-orientation marriages offer opportunities for deep spiritual growth.
Gender Equality:
- Have patience. This is another example of where the church is making mistakes, but we are improving, and we will “get it right” in time.
- Equality does not need to entail “sameness.” There can be equal status/worth with differing roles/responsibilities.
On racism, LGTBQ issues, and gender equality, I think we have been wrong and are wrong still on a lot of things. If we are, it’s our fault, not God’s fault. I believe in a God that doesn’t intervene actively on these sort of things, so it’s up to us a Body of Christ to evaluate things that are wrong and improve them. That’s a very serious responsibility. As we grow and progress and are led by the Holy Ghost to acknowledge are wrongs and what we need to do to make them right, this will “trickle up” and our leaders will know what to pray for and what to ask for, and they will receive the answers they need to lead the Church in the right way.
Thanks John, for starting this dialogue. I think the main issue you had in your list was in trying to combine too many of the Neo-Apologists into a holistic view that doesn’t really make sense. You’ve probably heard all of your bullet points stated or suggested by different Neo-Apologists in your list, but there is too much variance between them to try to define it in whole. There are liberal/metaphorical defenses of the Church which I would call Neo-Apologetic arguments, which I put forward. Then there are traditional Apologetic views that obfuscate or try to make the unlikely still possible in order to preserve the traditional and literal and exclusive model. Some of the Neo-Apologists on your list might not be pure Neo-Apologists and still hang on to some of the traditional Apologetics. You have a lot of those types of arguments in your list. I reject nearly all of these. But some wouldn’t. And therefore, you have a bullet point list that as a whole kind of seems incoherent and inconsistent.
Wheat & Tares 
Well, having been challenged on lengthy replies, I will try a short one.
Enduring to the end. See y’all on the other side someday.
Enduring to the end. Well said.
Nicely done CIT!. The greatest paradox (mixed with just a bit of irony) which I’ve faced and experienced in my adult life occurred at the instant I opened my mind and heart to the possibility that the vast majority of what is called “Mormon Doctrine” is not, in fact, based upon historical events ; but is rather predominately built upon “faith based allegorical stories”. At that moment, my mind and soul finally felt some peace. Peace which had not come to me for many, many years – despite all of the praying, fasting and doing as required in my Mormon checklist.
I’ve got to admit….I quite admire Bushman for publically declaring:
“I think that for the Church to remain strong it has to reconstruct its narrative. The dominant narrative is not
true; it can’t be sustained. The Church has to absorb all this new information or it will be on very shaky grounds and that’s
what it is trying to do and it will be a strain for a lot ofpeople, older people especially. But I think it has to change.”
The problem with this discussion is that it judges these issues against what the LDS church says rather than what God says.
Interesting that most of these items are social or even political issues. There are plenty of good organizations out there that can inspire us to lead better lives. The only thing that matters to me is #10: “We have exclusive authority to perform saving priesthood ordinances.” That’s either true or it isn’t. If I didn’t believe that one thing was true, I would be out the door.
What is a neo-apologist, as opposed to a regular apologist?
MoHeretetic: No one can really agree on the definitions, which is a big problem. But the general idea is that traditional Mormon Apologists are more likely to: defend the church’s literal truth claims, be very concerned with Book of Mormon and other scripture historicity, be guilty of obfuscating and stretch logic like tapir = horse, and to engage critics and doubters in a harsh way. Neo Apologists are more likely to: not be concerned with scripture historicity or even reject it themselves, allow for metaphorical views, take unorthodox views on some things like church exclusivity, validate doubters and critics and do pastoral work, and engage in Apologetics in a gentler kinder way.
These two posts go into it in far more detail than you probably want https://wheatandtares.org/2018/03/08/john-dehlin-brooke-and-josh-miller-and-their-not-so-shocking-discussion-with-spencer-fluhman/ https://wheatandtares.org/2018/03/15/neo-apologetics-nuance-and-belief-spectrum-part-2/
Great responses. I agree with nearly every one of them.
Arelius writes: “The problem with this discussion is that it judges these issues against what the LDS church says rather than what God says.”
Oh? And how exactly do you know what God says? God (or his angelic messenger) has spoken 7 words to me on quick count.
What is your count? How many words has God spoken TO YOU?
For everything else there’s written words, some which you choose to believe and some which you choose not to believe. It is so for me as well.
Amen Lily. The church lives and dies with that one right there in my little brain. We are not doing circumcisions for the dead, so there is always the chance that God changes his mind on what exactly saving ordinances are for different groups of people.
To the majority of members, the word doctrine is synonymous with truth (the way things are , have been, or will be). Apologists try to bend truth to fit the doctrine. Neo apologists don’t have that same standard and are able to dismiss doctrine as truth, but are willing to sustain the brethren until the doctrine moves more towards truth. There aren’t a lot of people willing or able to walk that tightrope.
I read this post literally last night. The problem for me was his use of a term that isn’t neatly defined. As you can relate to and mentioned in the introduction and finale to your post, when you over use a term without clearly defining that term it leads to a hot mess. I hate the word problematic because academics tend to over use it, but neo apologist is incredibly problematic .
Most importantly, he isn’t really summarizing the positions accurately. I am one of those that use nuanced arguments and research to argue for historicity, and his attempts to summarize that position are groping towards an explanation of their position but still misses the point. (Your doing your typical scoffing at so called “traditional apologists” as well. You stigmatize “regular” apologist positions by using terms like obfuscating and logic stretching that doesn’t really apply to the body of their work. Ironically enough, when I read simplistic definitions like yours it makes it sound like you’re obfuscating and twisting logic to deny their legitimate points.) I appreciate trying to simplify matters and be succinct (I wish he would use the same methodology for his hours long podcasts), but at a certain point you simplify so much that you end up presenting a superficial caricature, which Dehlin does here.
Zach, I appreciate the example in your first paragraph addressed to Lily. I doubt I would have ever thought of that example myself, though the conclusion has long seemed obvious to me. I think I will be able to make good use of your comment
Your 2d paragraph surprised me. I didn’t realize you knew the majority of members and had quizzed them on what they thought the word “doctrine” meant. I’ve found few who could articulate what they thought “doctrine” meant generally, a few more who could recognize that the word isn’t always used to mean the same thing, and fewer who could sensibly defend their definitions, and none who know what “purity of” or “pure” doctrine means. I must have been looking in the wrong places. But doesn’t the “majority” definition make your statement “Apologists try to bend truth to fit the doctrine” a circular statement? Or does “truth” mean something different in that sentence than it did in the prior sentence?
I often remind myself of a proposed epitaph I heard: “Dead, but still confused.” except I’m not dead yet.
Cheers.
Did Joseph Smith see God and Jesus Christ? I choose to believe he did, though I wish I had been there so I would ‘know.
The first vision is the basis of my testimony. If the Book of Mormon is not historically true, I can live with that. If Joseph did not really see God, I can’t live with that.
Do most neo-apologists believe Joseph actually saw God or that something else or nothing at all happened?
Enjoyed the post. I will say that I personally do not find the neologism Neo-Apologist a meaningful or coherent addition to the lexicon. I think it’s simply meant to be an insult.
I saw Dehlin’s post earlier and quit reading it after the first bit. I think his quest to identify what neo-apologists believe is next to impossible, because, like churchistrue said, there are so many different views. There is no church of neo-apologetics to delineate its doctrine.
It was informative to see answers from at least one self-described neo-apologist. Thanks OP.
“Do most neo-apologists believe Joseph actually saw God or that something else or nothing at all happened?”
Can’t answer for most, and I’m not a neo-apologist. But I think at least one of the famous ones is on record saying that they give most credence to the earliest record of the first vision, recorded by JS in his journal in his own hand in 1832. This account is different than the account in the Pearl of Great Price. It is described in the LDS gospel topics essay, and full text is available in the Joseph Smith Papers.
https://www.lds.org/topics/first-vision-accounts
They gave it the most credence because it was written in a private journal so there was little reason to embellish, and it is the earliest account so the memory would be freshest.
If I can figure out which person said this and where, I’ll provide a link later.
I suppose that I could still believe that Joseph saw God and Jesus Christ with his “spiritual eyes” or in vision – but face to face in the flesh?: not any more. Many others during Joseph’s time (and I suppose since) had visions of Jesus.
I’m not a neo-apologist (although John has at times said that I am), and I find that I agree with most of your responses above (more than John’s original list).
Thanks for the link Rockwell. I just spent the last 45 minutes reading the various accounts of the first vision. I had never read them before.
“The important thing is the fruit of what Joseph did, which is the Church today.” The same church that promises negative social consequences for bloggers who speak too freely and publicly on matters related to the authority, competence or legitimacy of the LDS leadership? Posting in the hope this will “trickle up” posthaste: What to make of apologetics that piece by piecemeal boldly jettison nearly every familiar Mormon concept and belief except for the insistence on loyalty to the LDS leadership? My takeaway: it’s an incredibly frustrating but admittedly pure distillation of the problem at the heart of Mormonism: Authority at its most capricious that creates a culture of impunity that crushes free minds. Until the threat of reprisal is removed, the rest of this effort matters very little.
Sorry JR. I was in a hurry and was just trying to answer what I see as the difference between apologists and neo apologists. I don’t know what the majority of members think. That was a stupid thing to say. When I first started having questions I went to Jeff Lindsey’s website and Fair Mormon and those apologists start with the premise that the prophet or doctrine was correct – polygamy was ordered by God, race ban came from God, BOM is literal, Adam and Eve are literal, Book of Abraham is actual translation etc. It wasn’t until I read Rough Stone Rolling that I could sense a different tone. I don’t want to put words in Bushman’s mouth, but he left the door open to error. He said stuff like “Joseph felt strongly that he was commanded by God to start polygamy”. I would call people that use that tone neo apologists. I was just trying to respond to MH. I like the neo apologists and they have helped me a ton, but I do agree with Kevin that it is meant to be an insult. I think the Tom Phillips crowd who are just loaded with so much integrity that they had no choice but to leave use this term to call others kinda sorta cowards.
I really enjoy your comments on this blog. Take care my friend.
Rockwell, I think you might be referring to Richard Bushman’s description of the 1832 account, from his Reddit AMA. https://pr.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/1sp4mi/ama_series_richard_bushman_dec_16_300_400_pm_est/ce30gzg/
Or perhaps this quote from BYU professor Marvin Hill:
It seems to me that everybody has approached the issue from the wrong end, by starting with the 1838 official version, when the account which should be under consideration is that of 1832. Merely on the face of it, the 1832 version stands a better chance of being more accurate and unembellished than does the 1838 account, which was intended as a public statement, streamlined for publication. When Joseph dictated his 1838 version (if he did, in fact, actually dictate it), he was aware of what had been previously published by Oliver Cowdery, and aware of his stature as the prophet of a new and important religious movement. It would be natural for him to smooth out the story, making it more logical and compelling than perhaps it first seemed in 1820.
Click to access Dialogue_V34N0102_47.pdf
Yes, I was thinking of Bushman. Thanks.
I assumed by “smoking gun” John meant something like “a letter from Joseph Smith that reads ‘Hahaha suckers, I made this all up and you fell for it!'” It’s a roundabout way of asking whether Joseph and other church leaders actually believed their own claims. I think that they did, but that’s a separate question from the accuracy or validity of their claims.
#11 All of the problems with the church are intentional (by God) – they provide opportunities for faith.
I agree with this proposition. The Book of Mormon teaches repeatedly that God blesses and tries his followers. This concept of God proving his followers is depicted throughout the pages of the Book of Mormon.
Here are a few scriptures from the standard words that teach this doctrine.
For it must needs be, that there is an aopposition in all things. (Book of Mormon | 2 Nephi 2:11)
21…the Lord seeth fit to chasten his people; yea, he trieth their patience and their faith. (Book of Mormon | Mosiah 23:21)
25 And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them;
26 And they who keep their first estate shall be added upon; and they who keep not their first estate shall not have glory in the same kingdom with those who keep their first estate; and they who keep their second estate shall have glory added upon their heads for ever and ever. (Pearl of Great Price | Abraham 3:25 – 26)
22…through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God. (New Testament | Acts 14:22)
12 Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him. (New Testament | James 1:12)
14 Therefore, be not afraid of your enemies, for I have decreed in my heart, saith the Lord, that I will prove you in all things, whether you will abide in my covenant, even unto death, that you may be found worthy.
15 For if ye will not abide in my covenant ye are not worthy of me. (Doctrine and Covenants | Section 98:14 – 15)
So on JS, how to interpret the later versions of the First Vision, and whether JS was ‘lying,’ my answer is always that it is complicated. Because the brain itself and how it stores memories are hugely complicated. By chance I recently listened to a podcast that does the best job I’ve ever heard of explaining why. I highly recommend a listen.
http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/24-free-brian-williams
(In case the link disappears, Google Revisionist History, ‘Free Brian Williams’
Thanks to this group I have read the 1832 First Vision account. It is wonderful; reads like my own writing (but a bit later in life) having very similar questions. I haven’t seen God but I have seen his light and heard a voice, except not really *heard* it is like the echo of having just heard the voice but knowing it wasn’t my ears that heard it. Yet it formed words as though had been spoken.
It is more believable than the polished version.
Really good and meaty post. I can’t respond to these questions without giving my explanations short shrift, so I’ll keep it brief on a couple of things. I’ve always seen the B of M as a story, not a “true account”. I’m not an anthropologist, but the way the book talks about groups of people doing things, organizing themselves, etc. just doesn’t strike me as quite right. And the narrative and the language in which its put just seems off. And I really don’t care that it’s true. Truth with a capital “T” is an extremely rare commodity, either within or without religion, so I’m just concerned with my own truths and tend to be skeptical of any church’s claims.
Which leads me to my other point: I think we (the LDS Church) make a huge mistake with our dogged insistence that we’re the only ones who can do anything truly meaningful when it comes to “saving ordinances”. Mormon literalism/exceptionalism is (and will continue to be) put under a great deal of pressure as more problematic historical elements come to light (does anyone realize the depths of Martin Harris’s mental illness? He mistook a deer for Jesus Christ, for Pete’s sake.). Anyone should be able to note that the LDS Church, just like many other churches, had to build a back door when it comes to ordinances: “If we don’t get everyone’s ordinances done in this life, it will get done in the afterlife because God will take care of everything eventually.” That justification, of course, essentially robs LDS ordinances of their exclusivity because God will make sure everything is right in the end. And I don’t believe that a loving God, one who values family and social ties as much as we claim he does, would keep someone apart from their loved ones because a certain ordinance wasn’t performed. That’s why I really don’t give a damn if we have “exclusive” authority to perform ordinances. That claim ends up being pretty meaningless, IMHO. If we stopped this exclusivity ridiculousness and were a bit more humble as a people, more of us would end up like Mr. Rogers instead of Jim Bakker.
endure to the end
Oh yeah, the existence of pansexual trans girls is definitely a thing you have to endure until we’re all boiled alive at the Second Coming. Thank god there won’t be any more queers or people of colour in heaven, or anyone else who scares me.
Brother Sky writes “That justification, of course, essentially robs LDS ordinances of their exclusivity because God will make sure everything is right in the end.”
You are driving along a lonely country road, perhaps highway 6 from Price to Green River; or better yet, Highway 50 from Fallon to Austin, Nevada; “Loneliest Highway in America”. You see a motorist with a flat tire; she is struggling to attach a spare. Maybe the spare is low on air and you have a compressor. Hardly any inconvenience to you but a huge benefit to the motorist.
But, knowing that Nevada Highway Patrol visits this stretch usually daily, you continue on your way knowing that someone else will take care of the problem, and you’d be right! But you missed that opportunity to be the helper.
It is a test of character and an opportunity to build and improve it.
The Christian God is extremely exclusive. So is the Muslim God. Both promise to make things right — by their definitions of “right”.
Brother Sky writes “I don’t believe that a loving God, one who values family and social ties as much as we claim he does, would keep someone apart from their loved ones because a certain ordinance wasn’t performed. “
I believe God will not “keep” anyone from anything; not standing there as a gatekeeper preventing people from entering a place they don’t want to be. [Not to deny the possibility that Seraphim might be doing exactly that]
D&C 88 32 And they who remain shall also be quickened; nevertheless, they shall return again to their own place, to enjoy that which they are willing to receive, because they were not willing to enjoy that which they might have received. 33 For what doth it profit a man if a gift is bestowed upon him, and he receive not the gift? Behold, he rejoices not in that which is given unto him, neither rejoices in him who is the giver of the gift.
And
37 And there are many kingdoms; for there is no space in the which there is no kingdom; and there is no kingdom in which there is no space, either a greater or a lesser kingdom. 38 And unto every kingdom is given a law; and unto every law there are certain bounds also and conditions.
My understanding is that God wants everyone to be happy; it would be a mistake to force upon you a TYPE of happiness that doesn’t make you happy! “There are many kingdoms”. In this life we make choices; some go to Florida for the heat and some go to Minnesota for the cold and the fishing, some go to Wyoming for spectacular mountain ranges.
The promise to those of Celestial glory is they can do anything they want so if they want to go visit Uncle Jack in the Telestial Kingdom they can do so. He won’t have the same freedom to go to the CK but the implication is that he won’t want to.
In the next life, your Uncle Jack is no longer your uncle; he’s a sibling, one of billions.
Consider carefully what you want because you’ll be doing it for the next 300 million years (more or less).
Jewelfox writes “the existence of pansexual trans girls is definitely a thing you have to endure until we’re all boiled alive at the Second Coming.”
So it seems. It will be interesting to see what happens at the resurrection when your DNA is reconstituted.
“Thank god there won’t be any more queers or people of colour in heaven”
“Heaven” isn’t well defined in Mormon theology. There be many such places each with varying conditions and entrance requirements.
ReTx redommends a podcast on imperfect memory, that of Brian Williams. When I started listening to it I suddenly remembered his fall from grace; among Mormons there’s a similar story: Paul H. Dunn. I read and heard his faith promoting stories in my youth.
I have told stories of my life over the years. I notice that exaggeration creeps in. I have a journal that allows me to revisit my own stories and resist exaggeration. An event happens only once, but if you retell an exaggerated version ten times, then the exaggerated version starts to become the event itself (and is exaggerated again, repeating the process).
I have also “merged” memories, splicing them so that two memories seem as one. This can be difficult to unravel.
Brother Sky –
I’ve always thought the obsession with proselyting, baptizing and hurrying converts into sealing because it’s important for ‘Families to be together Forever’ as making no sense for the very reason you described. We already believe that every person will be sealed to their families and whether that happens in this life of the next is immaterial (as far as we know anyway). So being sealed isn’t really all that special. It’s universal. I wish we focused our missionary work more on a ‘come join us in improving the world as Michael 2 was saying. To me, that is the more powerful message.
However, it needs to be said that telling someone who is transgender that their DNA is going to be reconstituted after death is both non-doctrinal and deeply insulting.
Especially when it is followed up by implying that LGBTQ and people of color (so non-white?) may end up somewhere ‘else’ in heaven with different entrance requirements (than white folk?). While I love the idea of a heaven of many mansions, dividing those mansions by a person’s skin color or sexual/gender orientation rather than by God judging their heart and soul is deeply disturbing, deeply racist, and deeply homophobic. I’d say JewelFox is owed an apology.
Hmm… Paul H. Dunn is an interesting parallel to the Brian Williams story. But wasn’t Dunn also involved in real estate fraud or something like that? And completely invented a baseball career? His lies seemed so extreme and numerous…
ReTx–
I agree that JewelFox is owed an apology. Sadly, I don’t think one is likely to be forthcoming any more than one is likely to be forthcoming from the church itself. I think that’s why all of these claims about exclusivity and the awesomeness of the LDS Church get under my skin. Often, those claims are used to exclude others from the Kingdom of God for a variety of reasons, not least of which is skin color, gender and sexual orientation, not to mention being impoverished (it’s poor people’s fault that they’re poor, if we go by the conservatives in my congregation). The more people talk about exclusivity, the less I trust them to do what Christ taught: Love everyone, care for the downtrodden and the outsiders, and teach everyone that they are valued in the eyes of God.
ReTx writes “dividing those mansions by a person’s skin color or sexual/gender orientation rather than by God judging their heart and soul is deeply disturbing, deeply racist, and deeply homophobic.”
It appears you are towing a baggage cart. The baggage includes a notion that you are not in charge of your life or choices, that someone else made the mansions and stands at the doorway and maybe you won’t get into a particular mansion. That is what chains you.
Yesterday I learned an interesting bit of trivia about elephants. Grown elephants can be chained with a small chain. They could easily break it, but they don’t, because they believe it is unbreakable. As infant elephants they learned this.
“Tulshi Sen at an Elephant Camp in the mountains of Chiang Mai, Thailand discusses how these magnificent animals are tied to a chain which they could easily remove with a little tug. He shows how this same conditioning happens in our own lives and how we have to break our own chains that hold us back.”
This is the power of learned victimhood. For example, white privilege does not exist; what exists is a belief in white privilege and holds many people back. I’ve already shared the story of two young black sailors; one did not believe himself a victim and went on to the White House Communications Agency; the other believed himself a victim and breaking him out of it was remarkably difficult.
The only thing I have said about these many mansions is that each of us determines our mansion by our actions in this life. D&C 88. One (maybe several) do have some pretty strict entrance requirements.
D&C 132:15-20. If you make it to the top, you can do or be anything that is possible to be.
Comments on resurrection:
[https]://bycommonconsent.com/2011/09/14/building-the-perfect-resurrected-body/
Somewhat more official discussion on resurrection: [http]://emp.byui.edu/satterfieldb/quotes/Resurrection/Nature%20of%20Resurrected%20Bodies.html
Ya know… Your arguments would have a lot more power if you stopped trying to define people who you don’t know past a few comments on the internet… Seems kind of a waste of time as you are unlikely to be correct about the person you don’t know. Throwing darts maybe?
Did you forget I train animals? What you described with the elephants is called ‘Learned Helplessness.’ It’s a huge red flag for an animal having a history of abuse. I’d encourage you to look into the training methods used on elephants in Asian. There are wonderful trainers out there, but there are also a LOT of horror stories. If you are going to extrapolate Learned Helplessness / Learned Victimhood to humans (and I agree it definitely exists) you need to make sure you are very clear about who is the abuser in the situation. How you undo Learned Helplessness is another hugely fascinating, difficult topic The way you don’t undo it is by attacking the individual/group that has been abused.
Michael 2, I’ve got to second ReTx’s comments. I normally don’t engage with folks in this way, but I think the uncharitable assumptions you make about your fellow posters aren’t really helpful. There are many different perspectives on the bloggernacle, certainly not all of them narrowly liberal, and I try to be charitable and open minded with folks who post stuff I don’t necessarily agree with, but I think it might be a good idea if you toned down the personal nature of some of your comments. Some of them are really out of order (I really must object to your comments about jewel fox’s DNA being re-constituted) and not supportable by either LDS doctrine or logic. That’s fine, and we are all speculating on one level or another, but I think making uncharitable and unsupportable assumptions about people isn’t really in the spirit of this blog. Angela C, if you feel my comments are out of line, please feel free to correct me or delete this post.
The church enjoyed it’s orthodoxy for 170 years but since Al Gore gave us the internet, much information is revealed that challenges that orthodoxy. Add this to the strong sociological and psychological mechanisms in place within the tribe and you have neo-apologetics, who believe 1 + 1 = 9. The power of epistemology is so grossly under-appreciated in this regard, it’s the same reason that the only people who can arrive at this way of thinking are those either born in the church or those who have spent significant time in the church before learning ALL the data and their brains almost force them to make it work somehow.