In 2009, I watched a mediocre Canadian mini-series based on Raymond Khoury’s novel The Last Templar, mostly because it starred Scott Foley[1]. I had read the novel which for years I mis-remembered as being a Dan Brown novel because it’s so similar in theme to one he would have written. The thrust of the novel is that the Templars were founded to protect the most secret artifact of all Christianity: the Gospel of Jesus. This gospel is basically the hand-written journal by Jesus of Nazareth, carpenter, and the gist of it is something like this:
Dear Diary,
I’m not divine. Just a carpenter.
xoxo, Jesus
My paraphrase of the big reveal in this novel.
The novel was what I would call a beach book, not really a super serious take on religion or archaeology or the Templars, and as for the movie, the big “sex scene” was missionary position which I guess passes for sexy in Canada. So it was disappointment all around.
When I read the book, I immediately thought of the Salamander letter and the Hofmann forgeries, the subject of the new Netflix documentary. In contemplating the novel’s idea of “incontrovertible” proof that Christianity was based on a lie, I couldn’t help but, well, doubt my doubts. How could anyone know what was authentic? They might be able to carbon date the so-called journal of Jesus, but it could have been written by someone else (nobody has a handwriting sample of Jesus, and he didn’t exactly include his secret ATM PIN for authentication). Was Jesus, a humble carpenter, even literate? Why would Jesus write a journal? Was he a teenage girl? If he were going to write a journal, why would he write that? Wouldn’t there be more about what he had for dinner and whether it was good?
Likewise, the Hofmann forgeries brought this idea of authentification under scrutiny, exposing it as inadequate, wishful thinking, and motivated by things other than scientific enquiry. As in the Hofmann story, there were people who were fooled, and there were fanatics trying to protect either the Church from the truth (in the novel, it was Catholicism, obviously) or the truth from being quashed by the Church (the Templars filled this role). Many of those in the novel who were “protecting” didn’t actually know what the thing was that they were protecting. Their role was simply to protect it, whatever it was, under the heroic mandate of their group of guardians. These roles are psychologically appealing, and easy to fall into, regardless the truth of the matter.
Unlike the novel, the Hofmann forgeries exposed the fraudulence of the authentication process. Hofmann successfully scientifically aged documents in very clever ways that were difficult to detect, but less difficult to detect once he came under suspicion. Humans are wired to believe others. We aren’t wired to assume we are being cheated. To a person who wishes to defraud others, it’s easy; we are wired to be duped and fooled. The community of historians interviewed in the Hofmann documentary were a close-knit group, mostly fooled by him. The Church also seemed ready to be fooled. When I first heard about the Salamander letter, it sounded extremely plausible–folk magic was definitely a part of the culture Joseph Smith grew up in. Even Hofmann’s wife, who comes across as enormously likable and sympathetic, was easily fooled as are the spouses of most fraudsters and serial killers.
In the case of Hofmann, I wondered how much his strict orthodox upbringing influenced his lack of affect. He had no remorse for his actions, and he was indiscriminate in whom he killed. He could have just as easily killed any of the others in the Mormon history circle, those interviewed in the documentary. Even contemplating suicide, Hofmann was ambivalent. He didn’t care about leaving his family behind or the impacts to his faithful wife. He intentionally toyed with the Church, amusing himself in the process, because he resented having to pretend to be a believer when he wasn’t. He grew up knowing love was conditional on being a faithful Church member. On the other hand, I often think that serial killers (he was technically more a garden-variety multiple murderer than a serial) aren’t necessarily a product of nurture. We just don’t know what happens. Anyone has the capacity to kill in the right circumstances. We want to believe they are hopelessly broken and different from us, but we really don’t know this.
Religions and their adherents have always been vulnerable to being defrauded and always will be because they are subjective, but rely on a framework of plausible myth. If holes are poked into that myth enough, the threat becomes a problem. Some believers do seek for a sign that their faith is an accurate worldview, but signs can be manufactured in either direction, proof or disproof. Reputational harm can cause a faith irreparable damage in the marketplace of religious ideas.
- Do you find yourself rooting for proof and evidence that the Church is true or false or do you not care about so-called evidence?
- Do you think evidence for religious things is valuable or too unreliable to be of value?
- What influence do you think Hofmann’s upbringing had, if any, on his temperament?
Discuss.
[1] I’m not Team Noel, but he’s still got that boy next door vibe you have to love.
Wheat & Tares 
“the big “sex scene” was missionary position which I guess passes for sexy in Canada. So it was disappointment all around”.
This made my morning!
1) Do you find yourself rooting for proof and evidence that the Church is true or false or do you not care about so-called evidence?
I love this question. When I went through my faith crisis, I grasped for anything I could find while being able to disconnect and say “is this really proof or are you just hoping it is?” In the end I forced myself to ask, even if it were found to be fake, do you still like and believe the principles of the BoM and the answer was yes. The reason I hoped to find proof was because the book was foundational in what made me better person.
To me that’s when I stopped caring about evidence and went back to enjoying the book.
2) Do you think evidence for religious things is valuable or too unreliable to be of value?
No, at the end of the day, if the doctrine of your religion doesn’t make you want to be a better and kinder person, then the doctrine is garbage.
The so-called documentary was little more than an outright attack on religion. Hofmann was portrayed as a mental giant who was able to fool people precisely because they were religious. He was portrayed as intelligent because he was an atheist. Both of these propositions are false.
“ Do you find yourself rooting for proof and evidence that the Church is true or false or do you not care about so-called evidence?”
I think our religion is unusually evidence-based compared to other Christian churches. We put a lot of weight on the Keystone idea of the BoM as it relates to JS’s prophethood. As the church increasingly treats the BoM as a revelation rather than a translation, this may change. But I grew up on the Gordon B Hinckley dichotomy—Joseph Smith was either a true prophet or a complete fraud—and the BoM was the smoking gun either way.
I’d be willing to bet that many of us here have seen our own biases flip from one side to the other. I used to get really excited about chiasmus, Quetzcoatl, etc. Now I’m extremely skeptical of any purported connections between BoM peoples and, say, the mound builders and more excited to learn about things like the First Book of Napoleon.
For most people outside the church the whole question is a non-starter. The untruth of Mormonism is so flatly self-evident to most people that the “evidence” isn’t worth the time to consider. And as the BoM becomes increasingly accepted by church scholars for what it is—a nineteenth century document—I wonder how long Gordon B Hinckley’s dichotomy will remain the prevailing school of thought.
“Do you think evidence for religious things is valuable or too unreliable to be of value?”
I think it’s extremely valuable. I also think every individual piece is unreliable, but the more independent pieces you gather, the more likely the whole might be of worth, even if a piece or two turns out to be bogus. The risk is putting too much weight on a given piece, because if it turns out to be bogus, the whole applecart falls.
A lot of post-faith crisis Mormons cope by deciding truth claims aren’t important. That way you can be a good person without feeling betrayed by the big lie. Besides, as long as you’re a good person and are doing your best, what does it matter, right? A big reason to want to believe in religion is the idea that everything will work out in the end. Everything else is just details — “all these things will give thee experience, and shall be for thy good” and all that. So if you can have that without having to adjudicate truth claims, great. You can settle with “I believe in God, and God loves me” and not worry about the rightness or wrongness of peepstones being used to translate the Book of Mormon.
But a Mormon belief that is part of my identity is that I’m to act, not just be acted upon — that progression requires action, and action often requires sacrifice. I want to progress, I want to act, and if I’m to sacrifice, I want to make sure that the sacrifices I make have meaning, if not effect. I guess that’s the key — “meaning”. You can’t have “meaning” without some truth claim, whatever it is. Even believing in a God that loves you is a truth claim. The more truth you have, the more meaning you’re going to have (I think — I’m not positive this is true, but I think it is). Consequently, the more evidence of religious things, the more truth claims you can rationally support, and the greater the meaning.
I’m well aware that I’ve incorporated a lot of bogus truth claims into my belief system in the past (confirmation bias has played no small part in it), and recognizing those and rooting them out has been painful. Plus, I’ve no doubt I’ve still got some bogus truth claims left over. But the more evidence I find, the closer “my truth” will line up with real truth.
john charity spring: there you go again. Did we watch the same documentary? I think Hoffman was made to look evil because he was evil. And I think the Church was made to look like an innocent victim for the most part. Had this been a hit piece against religion generally or the Church specifically, the tone would have been very different. The documentary really didn’t get into the motives for the Church’s interest in these documents. And there was very little said about how the Church transacts via third parties. If you are a TBM consider yourself lucky that your church came out of this documentary looking so good.
Oh, and about that idea that religious folks can be fooled precisely because they are religious: it’s called confirmation bias. It’s very strong among TBM types.
Do you find yourself rooting for proof and evidence that the Church is true or false or do you not care about so-called evidence?
I root in every sense of the word for evidence, which for me is an objective endeavor. Proof is, of course, subjective, based upon the evidence discovered through rooting.
Do you think evidence for religious things is valuable or too unreliable to be of value?
I think it is valuable.
What influence do you think Hofmann’s upbringing had, if any, on his temperament?
Some, of course, but not as much as his natural inclinations within his upbringing.
I have a couple of clear memories from my teens on this subject:
1) I remember happening upon a copy of the The Mormon Murders: A True Story of Greed, Forgery, Deceit and Death by Steven Naifeh and Gregory White Smith (1988). I found it in a book display at the grocery store. At the time, I had no clue about what had happened. My dad seemed mildly annoyed by the book and the subject material. We didn’t buy it. I didn’t really begin to wrap my head around the Hofmann forgeries and resulting tragedy until I was on my mission.
2) I remember leafing through a copy of the Ensign and reading an article about the forged Joseph Smith III blessing naming him successor. This was an article published in the Ensign BEFORE the bombings, before the forgery investigation, and had a tone similar to what you might get in a Gospel Topics essay today.
Sure, I’ve probably rooted for proof to be found disproving LDS Church truth claims. It would feel wonderfully vindicating. I’ve even felt a little jittery on occasion when I’ve seen faith-promoting rebuttals which seek to undercut sources which helped me transition from devout to agnostic. But these days, when millions can wholesale disavow quality journalism, quality scientific research, simply because they don’t like it, what value does proof even have anymore? For goodness sake, the original origin story for the Book of Abraham, which many of us were raised on, was disproved. What did that really change?
For me, the evidence that matters is not the details of how the BOM or Abraham came to be in our possession. I figure if you believe in divinely guided translation you can believe in divinely guided production. What matters to me is the end result of all those things. Do they inspire us to be better people? Do they tell us HOW to be better people? What does the church TODAY do with those supposedly God-given tools? Do they teach and promote and require an accounting from us of the best teachings in the scriptures and the prophetic writings since the the church was founded?
What is the church today most concerned with? What do they expect us as members to be most concerned with?
I have young sons reaching “milestone” ages and I wonder what the church has to offer their formative years. I feel like the church mostly was a positive influence on me at that time in my life, but I wonder if it will be of any value to them.
The evidence that matters to me are the actions of the church and its members today. 2020 sure gave us a lot of evidence.
@foxinhikingshorts I generally agree, with the caveat that it is important to me if we are dishonest about those details. Because then it’s not about the details – it’s about trust.
For the first century and a half, up until maybe 1970, evidence was a real thing in the Church. Remember, when the Egyptian papyri were first rediscovered, the Church published facsimiles of the papyri in the Improvement Era in 1968. The leadership was confident the papyri were evidence supporting the Book of Abraham. Oops.
Since then, there has been a shift to feelings-based testimony. That has certainly increased in just the last generation. The Hofmann episode probably accelerated that shift, as the leadership came to distrust experts even more after getting burned by document experts (who false authenticated so many documents) and historians (who were excited to dig into the magical folklore evident in the forgeries, and who kept on going with that interesting theme after the forgeries were exposed). Evidence still gets cited, of course, but rather selectively, when it supports the LDS view, not as in the scholarly or legal approach where contrary evidence has to be acknowledged and rebutted.
Evidence would prove helpful because past ‘evidence’ is now fairly easily debunked. The church has had benefit to me in my life and in the life of my family but when you begin to see where the institutional church has done harm – I won’t list them but I think you can guess where I’m going – it’s hard to know how real evidence will counterbalance all that?
And as a Canadian- should I take offense at your jabs? Though I have to say I’ve never heard of that mini series though think at one time thought Scott Foley was Canadian 🤔😆
Di: Well, the Canadian jab was just the whole “polite” stereotype, applied to this unsexy sex scene. It also didn’t help that Foley had zero chemistry with co-star Mira Sorvino. It’s crazy this show got such good stars to be in it. The book was a little more interesting, but man, that movie was dull and ridiculous. On the same front, there’s a pretty unsexy missionary sex scene in the Netflix British movie The Dig. Great movie overall. Sex scene, well, it was no Bridgerton. Maybe archaeologists just aren’t sexy. (Now I’m offending Mary Ann).
I think Hofmann was just one of those incredibly talented psychopaths who derived an addictive rush from revenge and fooling people. His upbringing is certainly a factor in his behavior, but most importantly the unique mix of chemicals in his brain account for his behavior more than anything else.
I don’t root for evidence against religion at all. For one religion is a broad category. There are all sorts of truth claims made under the rubric of religion, some of which have overwhelming evidence (i.e., the psychological benefits of meditation). However, I don’t root for evidence either. An interesting question to ask to believing Mormons is if they root for evidence that vindicates the claims of Islam or Hinduism. For Mormons are just as atheistic to those religions as members of those religions tend to be to Mormonism.
For me evidence stopped mattering when I decided that if the church makes me dislike a sexist, racist, homophobic God, then no other evidence that it might be factually correct mattered.
I think most people make their decision about religion on mostly emotional reasons, then find evidence that backs up their decision, so yes evidence is overrated because you can find enough to back up what you want to believe either way.
But evidence can help confirm that your decision to leave is not just based on your own inherent evil or being deceived by Satan. So, I think this is why evidence becomes very important to those who have an emotional reaction to aspects of doctrine or history. We want to make sure that truth backs up our feelings and that we are not “throwing the baby out with the bath water”. So, we double check by doing a through search of the bath water.
As far as Mark Hofmann and how his upbringing may have influenced who he became, his lack of remorse and his inability to empathize with others mark him as a psychopath and that seems to be inborn. However, upbringing can influence how a psychopath behaves. Some of them are taught to avoid breaking the law because it comes back to bite them in the butt, and psychopaths do care about themselves, so most of them turn out to be decent, if selfish and cold, and don’t go on to murder several people because they are selfish enough to want to stay out of prison. So, I think it takes both an inborn personality and a bad upbringing to turn out someone like Mark Hofmann.
I believe the several comments that we all seek to confirm what we already think is accurate, and for me, that type of proof honestly goes both ways. For example, while I have doubts that there were descendants of Israel in the ancient Americas, I get really irritated with those who broadly claim that “there’s no evidence of this civilization” when so much of this archaeology hasn’t really been done. There are many sites where the surface is barely scratched. So I don’t expect that any of them will be Nephites or whatever, but I do think the overconfidence of detractors is hubris on this specific point. I always love to find out more about ancient sites being discovered and how it alters what we know about the ancient world. On the other hand, on some level, I kind of wish the Salamander Letter were true because it’s a way better story, and it completely outdoes the face in the hat business. Sure, it sounds folk magic-y, but it’s definitely interesting! I get bored with all the mundanization (a word I just made up) of our religion. Our meetings feel like business meetings more than worship services. Average members seem to think that Jesus, Mary and Joseph had Family Home Evening on Mondays, and Adam and Eve met in the singles ward.
Evidence will never definitively prove whether the Church is ultimately true or not. However, it can shed light on whether certain statements are true.
Up until just a few years ago, the active narrative was that Joseph translated the plates by looking at them through the Urim and Thummim. Countless paintings reproduced in teaching manuals showed this process. Then it comes out that he looked at a stone in a hat, not the plates. One must ask what the purpose of the physical plates was at all.
Then we have the Book of Abraham, polygamy, the priesthood ban, etc. Then the latest: the official position that the name “Mormon” must not be used, while the clear evidence is that it was used with approval for well over a century.
The raises the ultimate question: is the Church “true,” but it suffers from leadership coming up with uninspired theories when evidence is lacking or has not yet been discovered? The answer remains elusive.
Do you find yourself rooting for proof and evidence that the Church is true or false or do you not care about so-called evidence? Do you think evidence for religious things is valuable or too unreliable to be of value?
I don’t root for evidence either way. I do recognize that some forms of evidence have greater weight than others. In general, I try to rate peer reviewed academic study above personal experience (because I recognize that I have bias), and both of these well above the “testimony” evidence of others.
What influence do you think Hofmann’s upbringing had, if any, on his temperament?
His temperament. Probably not. Insider knowledge that allowed him to deceive even the most elect? Yup.
These days it’s possible that I admire Elvis (a rather generous bloke) more than Brother Joseph – now I see the revelations in D&C as more convenient, topical, and timely rather than truly divine.
Props to the Church for the book “Revelations in Context” – the chapter on Jesse Gause is refreshingly honest.
Chet, I have understood the freedom with which JS and editors of the 1835 publication took the earlier language of the revelations as an indication that they did not believe them to be stenographic reports of the Lord’s words, regardless of the prevalence of first person or “thus-sayeth-the-Lord” language. Instead, they seemed to be trying to make them relevant to the Church at the time. I wonder if the book was then presented to the Church membership as something to be accepted or rejected by “common consent.” Maybe the stenographic understanding of “revelation” grew in part out of failure to footnote changes (not at 19th century habit) and failure to teach history of those changes as well as overconfidence in JS’ stenographic abilities. What do you think?
BTW, I think you probably didn’t mean a truly divine revelation should be inconvenient, irrelevant, and untimely, but the possibility amused me for a moment.
I have a 1990 paperback of the D&C and the Explanatory Introduction has some pretty flowery language – “for the benefit of all mankind… to all people everywhere”
Amusing possibility for the other point…and sometimes true in terms of (in)convenience.
“Mundanization” could be correlation’s less-euphemistic synonym. The whole correlation project was for consistency, and it’s really hard to push consistency without losing authenticity and desirable weirdness. If you’ve seen “Founder” (which I watched, appropriately, right after the Hoffman drama), you know exactly what I mean. But you also know that, most of the time, growth comes at authenticity’s expense. It’s hard to tell which is more important.
To me, after a decade in faith crisis, it almost seems like the things that were initially so alarming to me (magic, social engineering, “deep” doctrine) are really the most interesting and distinctive. It’s almost like I was conditioned to be afraid of the coolest things about our religion. Or like Salt Lake has made a new religion, but using only the boring parts.
@Billy Possum that’s part of the issue with Mormonism. After a faith crisis and deconstruction, what you’re left with just isn’t that interesting or different from the rest of Christianity.
“Humans are wired to believe others.”
Some are, many are not (as can be seen right here).
Your analysis is brilliant; each piece of evidence simply moves the goal posts. Is a document ancient? Yes, well then, was it actually written by Jesus? Yes, well then did he mean it to be factual or was he writing a fiction? Is he really the Son of God, and if so, what exactly does that mean for everyone else that is not sons and daughters of God? Physical evidence cannot lead to God but it CAN sometimes help discard impossible claims.
@Elisa, very good point. I think it is the paradox of Mormonism that now gives the church so much trouble. In a modern world, magic rocks and angels and gold plates seem far-fetched, nevermind that historical facts call into question whether anything approximating the magical events even happened. The magic parts of the church make it more interesting AND more difficult to swallow. What they’re left with is pabulum since leadership has killed many of the things–road shows, pageants, etc.–that at least created community. Jana Riess has effectively demonstrated that the church is largely irrelevant to young members in their 20s and 30s. Relevance will not be achieved by going heavy on the angels and plates. What are they going to do?
Elisa: “After a faith crisis and deconstruction, what you’re left with just isn’t that interesting or different from the rest of Christianity.”
Maybe that depends on the scope of one’s deconstruction. For some, at least, there are still significant differences from Calvinism’s predestination, from Lutheranism’s and others’ sola scriptura, from the Anglican Westminster Confession, from original sin, from Trinitarianism, from the limbo of infants (I think no longer a Catholic dogma, if it ever was, but still out there for some), from Catholicism’s immaculate conception and assumption of Mary, etc.
Some seem to find it possible to reject or “deconstruct” a lot of things various LDS leaders have taught while maintaining belief, or at least, hope, in other things in Mormonism that are quite different from a good number of things out there in the “rest of [varied] Christianity.” But, yeah, I can do without quite a number of Mormonism’s historically interesting or at least curious things. Maybe good religion just doesn’t need to be quite that “interesting”.
@Wondering, yes, I get that there are differences with Christianity — I recently had a very spirited discussion with some non-LDS Christian friends about how we think Eve made a brave choice and they were QUITE scandalized by that. Like, they were looking at me like I had two heads. But I do think a lot of things you mentioned aren’t talked about a ton in those denominations anymore — well, at least not in the sources I’m reading, but those I admit are progressive sources that are converging on a more social-justice Christian orientation that is a lot less concerned about all of that.
As for other things that are uniquely Mormon, I’m with @JaredsBrother that a lot of that was in community and culture and has been trimmed. Some of the other unique Mormon teachings are, in my view, quite harmful, so they aren’t compelling to me (leader worship, sad heaven, worship of heteronormative nuclear family).
In any event, fundamentally I’m coming to the conclusion that most theology is BS and, frankly, a waste of time. To the extent a theology helps improve our relationship with divinity and with other people, great; if not, I’m not interested because we’re probably wrong about it anyway.
If, for the sake of argument, religious truth is evidence based, I don’t think there is enough on either side to win the day. One just cancels the other.
For me, the sticking point is the insistence of religious leaders that they KNOW what the truth is and that they have a corner on the market – often without even a pretense of evidence. Then they tell you how to discern what is true.
In the case of the COJCOLDS, if you don’t line up with the leaders’ very specific truth claims then you really don’t get to play.
“Do you sustain the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the prophet, seer, and revelator and as the only person on the earth authorized to exercise all priesthood keys?” Doesn’t seem like a super efficient plan to have this one guy – that is unknown to all but a tiny fraction of the world – holding all the keys to happiness and salvation for mankind. Sure he can delegate some keys, but then he has to prophesy, receive revelation, see unseeable things, and then get the word out to the other 99%+ of the world that, again, has never heard of him.
How can that even be a thing? So no temple recommend for me. Some, including many on W&T, are able to make that work. I sometimes wish I could.
In the real world, an answer is sometimes not clear. I can’t make an immediate decision. Sometimes it is a matter of needing more information (evidence). Often, it just takes time for ideas to gel and a clear insight to develop. This process can be frustrating and very uncomfortable. Sometimes it takes courage to say “I don’t know – let me get back to you”. And when you do get back, it’s a good solution. Sometimes even a brilliant solution.
In the Mormon world – that same process is often labeled as a “stupor of thought” which is of the devil. When the stupor comes (cognitive dissonance?) retreat back to something comfortable. The relief that comes from backing off of a hard or challenging question is really not a burning in the busom that comes from God. It just isn’t.
Well, Been There, I think I understand and respect your position.
As to “sustain” I’ve encountered it before.
But some understand – or choose to understand — “sustain” and “stupor of thought” quite differently, to say nothing of quite varied and inconsistent Mormon uses of the words “happiness” and “salvation”. Perhaps differences in what those words mean to them and their lack of interest in what those words mean to their particular local inquisitors (“judges in Israel” or not 🙂 ) are part of why some of them hold temple recommends and you don’t. (Not that a temple recommend represents God’s judgment, but, yes, adults don’t get to play in some parts of Mormon cultures without one.) It seems to me that a lot of us – from ages 2 to senile – also use the word “know” to cover a variety of meanings and a lot of different levels of certainty — not that certainty was ever an indication of some external, universal truth, but it can be a motivator.
On the other hand, I’ve never before seen or heard your version of “stupor of thought”.
Your penultimate paragraph is exactly how I heard some describe their process of seeking/receiving divine “inspiration”. It’s a process I use a lot, though I’ve never thought of the result – and eventual solution – as divine inspiration. I have been quietly amused when some have insisted something I did or said was “inspired” (in a Mormon revelatory sense) when, if I was, I had no inkling of it. I’ve also never heard the process you described called a “stupor of thought” nor have I heard “stupor of thought” described as being of the devil. I have assumed it meant a mere absence of inspiration AND an inability to think further. Maybe I’ll look further for more descriptions of “stupor of thought”. I wonder if there are any. It has seemed to me that some people live in a near constant “stupor of thought”. Some of those seem to know they do; others claim to “know” all kinds of things I think they don’t. Oh, well.
Then there’s the flip-side of the “stupor of thought” — the “burning in the bosom.” There have been a few times when I was convinced I had received divine communication or, in one case, confirmation. I would never have described any of them as a “burning in the bosom.” That phrase leaves me cold. It has never occurred to me that some could think it means the “relief that comes from backing off of a hard or challenging question.” I have wondered whether it was used for the same kind of internal “swelling” or “striving” motions that can go along with some of my more extreme reactions to moving music. But those things neither convey nor confirm any information capable of being “known.”
None of these ramblings mean you’re wrong — only that your Mormon culture and my current Mormon culture are significantly different. Many years ago, I lived for a time in Utah Valley. I was in one ward that could have in time driven me right out of the Church with its perceived rigidity and provincialism. Maybe it was like the Mormon culture you experience, though I don’t remember us ever discussing “stupor of thought” in that ward. Then I moved to another that I experienced as thoughtful, open, accepting and dedicated, but which probably included some who were rigid and provincial without my having to deal with them. There I heard the most memorable testimony I can remember — a counselor in the bishopric, a BYU professor, began Fast & Testimony meeting with a lengthy testimony on what he believed and why — all without ever once using the word “know.” The difference in those wards to me was like night and day. The people in my current ward and stake are more mixed in their levels of rigidity and openness. There are enough of the latter that I can deal with the former. Clearly there are wards in the Church I don’t think I could deal with. You seem to have been surrounded by the latter and to have found some way of [not] dealing with it. I hope it continues to work for you.
Elisa, I agree that a lot of theology seems a waste of time. But for some their understanding of Mormon theology “helps improve [their] relationship with divinity and with other people” whether they’re “wrong about it” (either theology or Mormonism) or not. I wouldn’t be surprised at the same observation of some others’ understanding of other theologies. I think I have observed that, from a distance, in the case of some moving from Mormonism to various versions of Anglicanism. I think I’ve observed it in my work with some Lutherans and some Catholics, somewhat less so in my work with some Presbyterians who do, indeed, seem to have given up Calvinism’s pre-destinationism, at least so far as they talk about such things. Some progressive congregations in various denominations are indeed “converging on a more social-justice Christian orientation” and apparently little concerned with theology. There are also still many congregations and individuals that are greatly concerned with theology. It seems motivating for some and paralyzing for others.
@Wondering you ended up mostly answering it for me, but reading your comment I couldn’t help but wonder where you had lived to have avoided so many of the teachings and ideas many of us have experienced and in many cases continue to experience.
I can only tell you that we aren’t making this up and while I’m glad you seem to have found some pocket of Mormonism where they teach about polygamy and don’t teach the crazy, that’s not true of a lot of us!
@Wondering I appreciate your thoughtful response. I think there are two things that drive my thoughts and feelings.
1 – As I read the Church’s digital messages for members, particularly those directed at youth and young adults, I see a very prominent theme: doubts and questioning come from the adversary. Either the message itself or the accompanying commentary is hard to take subtly (Church News articles, digital Liahona content, emails from the church.) They often specify that the uncomfortable feelings one has when questioning is evidence that questioning is “not of the Lord”.
My experiences at the local level do not contribute to my perception of what is coming out of headquarters. I’ve been in 17 wards from coast to coast since I’ve been married and the ward or it’s leadership has not, with one or two minor exceptions, ever been negative or has detracted from my church experience. So, I would take that off the table.
2 – Since the deaths of my sons, I seem to have lost the ability to be anything but frank. I am not ornery, abrasive, rude, confrontational – just frank. If being frank is going to lead to something unpleasant, I usually choose to not say anything. I don’t feel a need to press my thoughts or opinions or “straighten anyone out”. I am happy to contribute but don’t want to be contrary in church.
What that means for me in the bishop’s office though, is that I am unable to tinker around with definitions to the words in the interview questions just so that I don’t feel like I am outright lying – but am still able to get a signature.
About two years ago the bishop dropped by to extend a calling in the primary presidency to my wife. He knew we have a gay son so he asked if we support same-sex marriage. The answer is “Yes”. He withdrew the calling and said we couldn’t have temple recommends. My thought was that it’s their club and they can set the rules – just the way it is. My wife was more wounded – I think justifiably so. The stake president got wind of it somehow and dropped by. He is a LBGTQ affirming guy and had organized some stake leadership training on how to support that community. He said that our support of same-sex marriage would not keep us from a temple recommend.
I could have “gamed the system” then and there and gotten a recommend. Instead I said, I wouldn’t feel right with you leaving thinking that same-sex marriage is my only concern. After frankly sharing some of concerns, he agreed that a recommend was not in order.
I felt much better about that outcome than I would have had I slipped under the radar without vocalizing my other questions.
My local leaders are faithfully executing what they understand to be their duty to the church. I haven’t experience overreach or unfairness. If my honest stance is judged to be unacceptable in their role as gatekeeper, I have chosen the outcome. My gaze is directed at the top for creating and perpetuating such a system. I don’t expect to have a scintilla of influence up there. But I am happy (and honored) to share on Wheat and Tares.
Been There, I really appreciate your contributions here.
I have full respect for those like you who feel impelled to volunteer stuff that the bishops and stake presidents or other interviewers are not authorized to ask in temple recommend interviews. Those things include such matters as whether you support legalization of gay marriage, or what “sustain” means, or what kind of a testimony you have (other than the specific wording of authorized questions in all their ambiguity), or, as one stake presidency member reportedly asked as the president’s direction “when was the last time you looked at pornography?” While I have never been asked such questions in that context, I know of others who have. (And I have occasionally experienced and seen others experience authoritarian overreaching by church leaders in other contexts.) I don’t feel impelled to go along with their “gaming the system” or their “tinkering with definitions.” I am perfectly capable of deciding what I think they can legitimately mean and answering honestly accordingly. That is not “tinkering around with definitions” or “gaming the system” in my book. Similarly, I don’t believe their callings somehow authorize GBH or RMN to purport to excise legitimate meanings of “sustain” from the English language.
My response to such unauthorized questions in a temple recommend interview would be “you are not authorized to ask such questions or to imagine what my answers would be if you were.” I might add something about the wide variety of beliefs among active, temple-recommend-holding members on some of those subjects, but what, if anything I added would depend greatly on both my relationship with the questioner and my estimation of his levels of rigidity and authoritarianism. If a temple recommend were denied because of my refusal to deal with unauthorized questions, that would simply be a function of the interviewer’s interpretation of his calling and authority. It would in effect be a result I had chosen — I suppose until there were different interviewers or the interviewer change his mind.
The subject reminds me of a couple peripherally related anecdotes from a friend and from a relative. (1) A bishop signed a temple recommend for a man who wanted to be present at his son’s temple wedding; the stake president called the bishop saying he didn’t think he could give the man a temple recommend because the man didn’t believe in a literal, singular Adam or a literal, singular Eve; the bishop responded “well, I don’t either”; the stake president signed the temple recommend. (2) My grandfather was called on a mission to serve as a civil engineer in the construction of the New Zealand temple. (He still had two daughters in high school at the time!) He was an inventive sort – including coming up with what was one of if not the first “floating foundation” for building on ground with an unstable water table, also some other innovations. Reportedly, in each case his superior on the project claimed credit for the ideas when he explained to the bosses in SLC. Eventually, after multiple repetitions of that behavior, one of grandfather’s friends asked him, why don’t you just quit and go home. His response was “It’s my church as much as it is theirs.”
As to the “prominent theme” that “doubts and questioning come from the adversary… {and] that questioning is ‘not of the Lord.'” That’s a crock!. It was doubts and questioning that led JS to the sacred grove. It was questioning that led to at least some of his other “revelations.” It was questioning that led to the end of the priesthood/temple ban. If only the Brethren were not so defensive of their own claims to authority and so expectant of others’ unquestioning acceptance of whatever they say (contrary to their own occasional statements) and so insistent upon their own limited definitions of “doubt”! If only instead of “doubt your doubts” they were to take the approach of encouraging questioning of one’s doubts as well as questioning one’s own faith and convictions, they might be able to help others deal with questions rather than encouraging them to smother their concerns. Well, I’m no more obligated to accept their sometimes prescriptive attempts to deal with language on that score as I am on any other like “sustain”. For me they are guides who sometimes tell us things worth thinking about and who have a responsibility to do their best leading an organization in pursuit of its goals. Sometimes their decision making is as off the mark as some of those I’ve seen from a mountaineering guide and a scout leader in the Cascades or any other human guide. Sometimes I expect they’re as off the mark as I am at times.
Oh, well, this Rambler is out of gas. (For the young’uns out there who have the patience to read this, if any, the Rambler line of cars continued through the 1969 model year in the United States and 1983 in international markets.)
For a master class in treating cognitive dissonance as the darkness resulting from Satan’s influence, look no further than Elder Corbridge’s “Stand Forever.” Frequently weaponized against “doubters”.
@Elisa – Amen.
@Wondering – I don’t disagree. But it’s no fun living that way. It shouldn’t be that way. Somehow I don’t see this fitting into “men are that they might have joy”. For me, I don’t enough confidence that the prescribed path leads to the promised outcome to continue playing along, looking for ways to fit in, or even tolerate the emotional overhead of it all.
“Do you sustain the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the prophet, seer, and revelator and as the only person on the earth authorized to exercise all priesthood keys?”
The key word is “exercise”. All of the apostles have all priesthood keys; *I* might have them! So might you. But church is a social organization and there can be only one chain of command. There is also “gospel” and it is widely distributed and its only authority is ultimately Jesus Christ.
Certain gifts are given to all believers anywhere and everywhere; as I sometimes point out, Joseph Smith wasn’t a Mormon when he saw God and Jesus. If he can, so can anyone else, if God and/or Jesus considers it sufficiently important.
A comment on doubters: As has been pointed out above, essentially every item of knowledge in the restored gospel came as a result of a question but not perhaps “doubt”. I see a difference between challenge questions where the assumption is you are wrong, bad or evil; defend yourself versus seeking greater light and knowledge.
Advice given by the Apostle Paul includes 1 Corinthians 14; everyone may prophesy but let things be done decently and in order.
In 1 Corinthians 8 7-13; but paraphrased verse 9 “but take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak”.
The context was eating meat that had been offered to idols. God doesn’t care. It’s just meat; let’s hope it was adequately cooked! But someone observing missionaries doing a thing that seems to them inappropriate creates a stumbling block, in this context, it ties the new church to a particular idol.
In other words, letter of the law versus spirit of the law.
Authenticity: To me that is paramount; the first stumbling block. If you simply quote dead people rather than your own experience; well, I can read the book for myself.
What do you believe and why do you believe it. It has been remarkably difficult to find this for the Apostles. A few speak authentically; Spencer W. Kimball famously did so in his biography. When he was called to be an apostle, he doubted that the calling was inspired. He obtained a witness and it was dramatic.
The church operates in a world gifted with Free Agency. That means any leader at any time can, and might, betray the trust given him; maybe deliberately, maybe inadvertently. That means I must choose for myself who to believe and what to believe; with a promise of inspiration to help what otherwise seems like an impossible task; to know truth when I encounter it and assistance when I speak it.
Yeah, Been There, well how much fun it can be depends greatly on the individual and what concepts, personal connections, and opportunities for service are more valuable to them than the weight of the emotional overhead they feel. My family (kids and grandkids) is very different from yours in many ways. My little corner of Mormondom is very different from yours. My Mormon opportunities with teaching and music may have been very different from yours. My tendency toward low-level depression for the last 7 decades may also be different from your emotional load. (What it means mostly now is that I’ve never been good at “joy” anyway, though I have a very wide range of emotional experience and significant satisfaction.) So, of course, the scales balance differently for me at present than for you. Switch places and they very well might be reversed.
BTW, what is “joy” anyway? I remain unconvinced that “men are that they might have joy” is intended originally to apply to this life. If it did, we’d be dragged headlong into the conceptual problems of how teleology can apply to an intelligence that always existed anyway (not a very fruitful area of speculation) or, if the purpose is imposed from without (by God?), why this world isn’t arranged a little better to accomplish it (also not a particularly fruitful area of speculation). Is “that they might have joy” the same thing as the “plan of happiness”? I think scripturally, that “plan” clearly refers to the hereafter and doesn’t have much of anything to do with finding happiness in Mormon culture. I do much better with our meetings (usually not deserving the names “worship services” or even “temple worship”) since I lowered my expectations considerably. I can now always find something in them to appreciate. And I’m really enjoying the reduction of meetings as a result of the pandemic, while being quite frustrated with about every other aspect of it.
I personally think everyone should grab what joy they can where they can. I hope you’re doing that. I have no expectation that those places or activities would or should be the same for everyone (how boring!) I think I’ll look for another whitewater rafting trip. That always floats my boat and it uses one I really do want to stay in. 🙂 I recommend Cataract Canyon and the Taos Box. Bach and Brahms work pretty well for me also. Recordings can be great. Just wish live ensemble and choral music were also currently available.
Cheers.
Michael 2, You seem to be working with a very narrow, limited definition of “doubt” when you write of doubters It is precisely the insistence on that limited use that creates a great deal of the problem. While the distinction you make between such doubt and questioning can be drawn, it is both futile and judgmental to pretend that that the concept(s) of “doubt” always include assuming something or someone is wrong rather than considering whether it or she could be in error, in whole or in part. They don’t. Pretending they do is for many a wholly unhelpful, damaging, and rejecting (rather than “ministering” or pastoral) approach. To take President Uchtdorf’s words somewhat out of context, I wish some folks would just:
“Stop it! We have to stop judging others and replace judgmental thoughts and feelings with a heart full of love for God and His children.”