“Suppose your youth receive their impressions of church history from ‘pictures and stories’ and build their faith upon these alleged miracles [and] shall someday come face to face with the fact that their belief rests on falsehoods, what then will be the result? Will they not say that since these things are myth and our Church has permitted them to be perpetuated… might not the other fundamentals to the actual story of the Church, the things in which it had its origin, might they not all be lies and nothing but lies?
Defender of the Faith: The BH Roberts Story
“[Some say that] because one repudiates the false he stands in danger of weakening, perhaps losing the truth. I have no fear of such results. I find my own heart strengthened in the truth by getting rid of the untruth, the spectacular, the bizarre, as soon as I learn that it is based upon worthless testimony.”
-BH Roberts
As assistant church historian from 1902-1933, BH Roberts was sometimes criticized for omitting or downplaying well-known miracles in church history. While I applaud the current increased dedicated scholarship of the church, (as well as the decades of valiant historical effort of those like Leonard Arrington) as a group we seem to persistently similarly spread what Elder Holland has termed “theological twinkies.” These theological or spiritual twinkies, while immediately satisfying, are neither inherently nourishing nor foundationally supportive. Ultimately, they will cause damage when relied on long term.
Closer to my professional arena, I often come across earnest “medical” recommendations passed on by others. I’m sure that these words of wisdom are intended to be helpful, and that the individual sharing the advice is nothing but earnest. However, the damage is ultimately still the same, no matter the intentions of the source. Some of the recent advice I have seen include recommending ingesting colloidal silver to eliminate COVID-19, encouraging the use of a hair dryer to blow hot air up the nose to kill the virus in the nasal passages and sinuses, and stating that vitamin C will protect against the virus.
Similarly in the church on a regular basis, I still hear stories passed along of certain miracles of the restoration – usually as a basis for some foundational point in a testimony. I’ve heard recently individuals testifying of the transfiguration of Brigham Young into Joseph Smith on August 8, 1844, the miracle of the seagulls saving the Salt Lake Valley from hordes of ravaging insects, as well as many others.
As with nearly everything, the reality is more complex than simple golden cake. Regarding the Transfiguration, no contemporary accounts (journals, letters, etc. from that date or immediately afterwards) of any change exist. Orson Hyde testified to seeing this miracle in 1869 (the earliest mention of a transfiguration), however, Orson Hyde was not at that meeting, not arriving in Nauvoo until nearly a week later on August 13th.
Regarding the seagulls, minimal contemporary written accounts of an insect infestation or seagulls exist (The insects were termed “Mormon Crickets” – a type of katydid). Some journals record no insects, while others did – but without the desperation and despair that come with the story today. Some journals noted rescuing seagulls, others noted none. Research has shown that seagulls eating such insects and regurgitating the non-digestible parts of the exoskeleton is a normal and regular occurrence.
Even today, President Nelson’s April Ensign message has been proclaimed as a miraculous and prescient message for this month during this difficult time. As Mary Ann impressively researched, the message was a collection of previous statements by President Nelson over decades of time.
To echo BH Roberts, building faith in the passed-along narrative of these miracles can often lead to ultimate rejection of fundamental tenets of the Church and even the gospel of Jesus Christ. Some of these stories can be investigated by just a few minutes of reading, and from sources such as BYU Studies. While I can appreciate the satisfying simplicity of a cupcake-like story as much as anyone, engaging with the complex reality is necessary for a true foundation. Millennials and younger generations have a very high BS meter, and oversimplified narratives that gloss over small but important details certainly trips mine, both in secular and religious contexts.
To be clear, I’m not saying that miracles do not happen. I believe that that they can. I feel we are witnessing many miracles today – not the least of which include the health care, grocery, sanitation and other workers risking their own safety in order to care for and assist others. I’ve always appreciated Mr. Rogers’ admonition to “Look for the helpers.” Helpers are truly examples of miracles today, and I encourage anyone able to become their own miracle to someone else and become a helper.
- What are ways that you recommend in becoming a possible miracle for someone else? (small things are often miracles)
- How do you feel is the best way to handle when someone gives testimony of these or similar stories, when they are oversimplified narratives, or even in the cases when the story is simply not true?
- Is BH Roberts correct? Are you strengthened in the truth by getting rid of the untruth?
- Please note that while silver has some anti-infection properties when applied topically (outside the body), it has no scientific evidence for effectiveness when taken internally, and actually will cause a condition called argyria – turning the skin a purple-blue color. I have seen this in person – the individuals look like a Smurf.
- With a hair dryer, you would severely irritate the mucosal lining of your nose before doing anything else. The virus also exists throughout your body, not just in sinuses and the nasal cavity.
- Vitamin C is supportive of immunity as part of a healthy diet, however, vitamin supplements have conflicting research support of effectiveness.
- To be clear, the messages from Pres. Nelson can be inherently helpful without any passed-along intimation that he specifically wrote this message just for this time. Similarly with historical miracles, a good kernel of truth can be negatively overshadowed by an oversimplified narrative.
Wheat & Tares 
Funny, I assumed this article was in reference to today’s first session of conference, but I’m sure it wasn’t. I was throughly underwhelmed at the spiritual meal , if not feast , I allowed myself to expect . I really tried to embrace the “excitement” of this historical event event, though I found it hard to believe it would be much different than my previous 36 years of watching gen conf. I found it particularly full of spiritual Twinkie’s and the same stereotypical stories and advice I’ve come to expect. I know that sounds harsh and it’s certainly more of a reflection on what I need to work on in my life than anything else. It was just disappointing, but luckily I still have 6 more hours to go!
I watch general conference “out of a sense of duty mixed with an eternal but rarely rewarded hope”. I’m still hopeful and still not rewarded.
As a child, I loved sweet things, and when Twinkies were available (which was rare), I certainly gobbled them up and thought of them as delicious wholesome food. That would certainly apply to spiritual Twinkies like the made-up inspirational stories from Paul Dunn or the short inspirational stories in several Deseret Book volumes for kids that we had. I loved those stories.
And then I grew older and somehow didn’t find Twinkies quite so enjoyable compared to more interesting things like Thai and Indian food. And the same thing was true of spiritual Twinkies like so many of the Ensign stories and conference talks. But I admit, even today I still have enough of a sweeth tooth that I occasionally indulge in something like a Twinkie. Or a heart-warming feel-good story. The rational part of my brain realizes that the story is probably not very historically accurate, but in the moment, like indulging in the Twinkie, the heart-warming, overly simplistic story just feels good. And then later I feel bad about it and wished I hadn’t indulged.
At some point, my parents taught me that the reason that Twinkies and other commercial desserts are so loaded with sugar is because it is a cheap way for the company to sell more. They never taught me that was also the case with most (all?) of my beloved childhood church book stories, but I eventually figured it out on my own. So at least now when indulge, I know better. And yes, that has made me rather cynical.
That BH Roberts quote really hit home with me. With my faith “crisis” a few years in the rear view mirror, I have thought back quite a bit on my life. I do realize that a huge part of my testimony was based quite a bit on all the “miracles” I heard. I was a youth when Paul H. Dunn was in his “prime” (I even met him and talked with him for about 15 minutes while on my mission). I realize now I had a TON of emotional elevation. When I started learning about so many of these stories were either exaggerations or just made up, my testimony of the church crumbled.
I am sure that many will say I built my testimony on a sand foundation. But I REALLY tried to get a spiritual witness, but even on my mission, attending the temple regularly, EQPres, HPGL, Bishoprics, stake callings, etc. I still never felt I could get any “revelations” even when others around me were saying, “Wow, didn’t you feel the spirit so strong in that meeting” and of course I knew I couldn’t say, “um, No. I didn’t”. So I don’t know what else I should have done. I feel confident that I tried for more than half a century before I just couldn’t sustain it anymore. I write this not to “get it off my chest”, but just if someone else is struggling they can realize others have had the same experience.
I wonder if it is not in fact very common that people never feel they “could get any ‘revelations’ even when others around [them are] saying, ‘Wow, didn’t you feel the spirit so strong in that meeting’. Of course, we’ll never know because they mostly know they can’t say, “um, No. I didn’t.”
I believe we do people and the Church a great disservice by preaching that one must “know” for oneself and by modeling repeatedly variously founded or unfounded assertions that the speak does “know.” It seems to me that that very common approach is fundamentally inconsistent with the D&C’s listing and partially explaining spiritual gifts. There seems to me a great variety in “testimonies” and their basis — far greater than one could derive from the language commonly used.
The talks by Sister Jones and the two youth speakers and the RS Pres and Pres’s Eyring and Oaks in the PM session all left me with a strong sense that ground work was being carefully laid for a BIG announcement tomorrow. One that is going to deeply challenge the faith of conservative members. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.
I’m one of those conservative members and am bracing myself.
Fred, I sure looks like they are leading up to females holding priesthood office. If they do all this lead up, then don’t ….
Fred and Geoff, that really wasn’t my take on those talks at all. On the contrary. There seemed to be massive emphasis on a complementarian model, which irked me no end. I can buy the view that the different skills of different individuals mean each have different strengths to contribute, but not that there are skills women contribute and then other skills that men contribute. But it’s that latter that seemed to be to being pushed. It all seemed to be geared to spelling out precisely why women do not require ordination or office.
I’d like to be wrong. But…
Possibly canonizing the Family Proclamation. They won’t be able to see my “opposed” vote through the TV.
@Beenthere, I hadn’t thought of that. You won’t be alone.
Fred, you had no reason to fear. No change. The opposite: a doubling down on fundamentalism.
They may be saving conservative members but for many on the edge this may have been enough to say, we’re done. If the heavens are open how come all they do is regurgitate old messages?
It looks like you may be right, Elisa and Hedgehog.
It’s really interesting how we as individuals can see the same things so differently. I was about 99% sure that the talks in Sat Pm session were all going to culminate in Pres Nelson standing up in that session or this mornings session to announce that women are getting the priesthood or at least getting greatly expanded opportunities to function under its direction (ie pass and bless the sacrament, bless babies etc).
Someone once said “we see the world not as it is, but as we are.” I think that was the case with me yesterday. Then again, you never know. We still have one more session to go….and Pres Nelson has surely shown that he loves to spring surprises on the church.
I thought the same thing initially Fred – so much emphasis on the “on-going restoration” and the iterative nature of restoration in the early days of the church. Lots of my friends and family also thought something was coming.
But then the afternoon and evening sessions, with their emphasis on priesthood duties of men vs. women, suggested no such change was forthcoming. We will see what the next two hours bring but I’m beyond underwhelmed so far.
A thought-provoking post. You used the word “miracle” 14 times. Several times to describe things that are miraculous – but debunked, and others to describe great things being done that fall outside the definition of a miracle.
A common practice at all levels within the church is to descript things that are good or extraordinary as miracles, when in fact there is no divine intervention that surpasses the laws of nature, common decency, or other causes. A medical intervention that heals is not a miracle – it is science and dedicated professionals applying their training.
“It”s a miracle!” is something we should be more careful with.
Wikipedia:
“The word “miracle” is usually used to describe any beneficial event that is physically impossible or impossible to confirm by nature.[5] Wayne Grudem defines miracle as “a less common kind of God’s activity in which he arouses people’s awe and wonder and bears witness to himself.”[6] Deistic perspective of God’s relation to the world defines miracle as a direct intervention of God into the world.”
One point on what you say BeenThere, is that Church leaders at the turn of the twentieth century tried to advocate the idea that there is very little that qualifies as a miracle in the sense of the definitions you bring up. Instead they tried to give a more scientific veneer to the idea of a miracle as being just something we don’t understand yet. For example, B.H. Roberts acknowledged similar definitions to what you bring up, but then went on to write that: “What we in our ignorance call miracles, are to God merely the results of the application of higher laws or forces of nature not yet learned by man. Miracles are to be viewed as a part of the divine economy” (New Witnesses for God, Vol. 1 [Salt Lake City: George Q. Cannon and Sons, 1895], 1:31-32, f). That is a part of why Church members “descript things that are good or extraordinary as miracles, when in fact there is no divine intervention that surpasses the laws of nature, common decency, or other causes,” as you say.
You are right Hedgehog, my optimism and hope for the church just took another hit. How many hopeful people like me will just not be able to convince themselves to go back when the virus is over.
So with my revised understanding (your Original understanding), all those speakers were doubling down on the place of women is lesser. Great? Do I just accept that as the best we can hope for from the church we have dedicated our life for.
Took my vitimins hoping he would deliver. Just more of the same.
chadlawrencenielsen
I agree that scientific humility is key to advancing understanding. But a lot has happened in the 125 years since BH Roberts wrote that. The scientific worldview has been exponentially reframed. The testimony meeting story of taking a sick loved one to the doctor who prescribed a course of treatment that resulted in healing is not a miracle. A kind stranger that helped you with a flat tire is not a miracle. Church leaders and members who claim these as miracles are clearly trying to attribute the positive outcomes to divine intervention.
That’s what I’m talking about – not that there are things we don’t understand – but that we have a habit of calling positive things that happen naturally, explainably, and are the result of human action, as God’s miracles. I noticed a fair amount of the other side of that coin in conference today: all manner of ills and troubles attributed directly to Satan’s action and influence.
The danger: We end up passing responsibility for solving our human problems on to God – and dodging responsibility for the problems we ourselves cause on to the devil.
That’s fair, BeenThere. I understand better where you’re coming from now. I suppose that if we’re going to embrace a belief in a radical free agency as part of the human condition, we need to carry that through to recognize more thoroughly that God and Satan aren’t in control of every blessing or bad thing that happens in life, but every individuals making choices are the ones at the wheel most of the time, so to speak.
Now that GC is over, we can compare what RMN said last Oct. about this weekend’s GC vs. what actually happened. Did anything happen today or yesterday that would warrant his warning to be prepared? I guess the fact that they issued an official proclamation and a new logo was what he was talking about. If you looked closely (at the upstate NY foliage) you noticed that the video he made in the Sacred Grove was probably shot BEFORE last Oct. So they knew a long time ago that they were going to do this. I guess to the Brethren, the issuance of a new proclamation is a big big deal (the first one in 25 years) even though it contained NOTHING new.
joshua h – In all fairness, they very might well have had an entirely different conference planned and then had to scramble to adjust because of covid-19. I’d always kind of thought they’d broadcast from Palmyra or something. It would be nice if the the church would tell us that they are adjusting their plans as every other organization does, but… well… it’s the church, so I’m used to it.
Geoff, they weren’t saying lesser.. but different. But… men preside in families because priesthood ordination, unless they aren’t there, in which case the woman presides because temple covenants means priesthood power… but the church doesn’t interfere in family at all, the family structure is different to the church structure…
Logical inconsistency all over the place.
@CLW00
I actually started thinking about the article after a family member, while reading Saints: Volume 1, had touted an ancestor’s sworn affidavit on the transfiguration of Brigham Young. Since I had just read over the BYU Studies article I cited above, that interaction confirmed to me that members of the church still pass along our narrative of foundational miracles. I didn’t engage with them to talk about the messy details of the history. I know that I personally have not liked it when I started reading the historical citations and found these historical events to be much more complex than I was taught, and even more complex than our Sunday School manuals present. I’m definitely sensitive to oversimplified narratives because of that. I don’t doubt that this happening increases the feeling of many members that the church has a transparency problem.
@10ac, Happy Hubby
Paul Dunn is a good example of this phenomenon. If a testimony has a basis in these miraculous stories, whether they be completely fabricated, or simply a kernel of goodness oversimplified into a miraculous occurrence, what happens to that testimony when the details emerge? I appreciate the increasing focus on inoculation in seminary and other areas – teaching more of the messy history, but I still feel it’s at best, half-hearted. The spiritual twinkies are too “delicious” to pass up.
@Wondering 8:09pm
I fully agree with you on the great variety in testimonies. Along the lines of repeated modeling, part of me agrees with many of my friends’ loathing of parentally prompted children’s testimonies during fast and testimony meeting. While they may simply be following Pres. Packer’s “A testimony is to be found in the bearing of it” – this is ultimately not the foundation of a testimony of truth. It is simply a foundation of being comfortable in repeating something-because it is familiar.
@BeenThere
You are correct, an actual definition of the world miracle excludes how I have used it here. I agree with you that it is not helpful in the church to label professionals applying their training in order to heal others as a miracle. I HAVE intentionally used the word “miracle (small m)” to describe human actions of goodness, including voluntary (potential) self-sacrifice for the good of others. Many of my medical friends are taking care of patients in ICUs outside of their specialties. It’s part of my attempt to be cognizant of small m miracles within human nature, especially during difficult times. While I don’t want to shunt responsibility in either direction for good and bad actions, I do want to recognize when good is expressed in human nature.
@joshua h, ReTx
I guess if they had planned to broadcast from Palmyra it would have been more memorable. Chilly and bare, but memorable. (My mother who grew up in that area never liked the Church’s media representations of the first vision. They always portrayed it as beautiful foliage, which is definitely not the case in that area in early spring.)
Other than the solemn assembly and hosanna shout (which has definitely generated conversation on Pres. Oaks’s rhythmic abilities and Pres. Nelson’s side eye), the talks seemed to be transplantable to any other general conference. Even the proclamation given was just a reiteration of restoration principles.
I used to be awed by the 3 Nephite stories that were taught with such conviction. I’m sure they were in authorized church materials!
And on GC – President Nelson is very fond of throwing out these teasers which only result in huge disappointment and my being totally underwhelmed. I saw a lot of doubling down and unlike others here didn’t expect anything monumental coming after the Sunday talks.
Totally unrelated – I felt some sympathy for the speakers as the lighting wasn’t at all flattering and made them all look shiny and perspiring. Quite distracting!