I recall while on my mission in southern California being told at one door “You don’t know what you believe; let me tell you what you believe.” Stephen E. Robinson wrote in 1997:
I am very happy to discuss my beliefs with anyone, but it is absurd—and a sure sign of bad faith—to argue with me that I do not really believe what I think I believe! Any religious group, whether Jewish, Mormon, Baptist or whatever, ought to be able to define itself rather than be defined by its antagonists. (Stephen E. Robinson, How Wide the Divide?[Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997], p. 12)
I believe one can extend this principle to not merely include a “religious group” but the members of that religious group as well. Every individual Jew, Mormon, Baptist, etc. “ought to be able to define” his/her beliefs rather than have such defined by antagonists.
Of course there are indeed at least two non-negotiable quotients to the restored Gospel which J. Reuben Clark stated “may not be overlooked, forgotten, shaded, or discarded.” These he said were applicable to “each and all of its members”:
First—that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh, the Creator of the world, the Lamb of God, the Sacrifice for the sins of the world, the Atoner for Adam’s transgression; that He was crucified; that His spirit left His body; that He died; that He was laid away in the tomb; that on the third day His spirit was reunited with His body, which again became a living being; that He was raised from the tomb a resurrected being, a perfect Being, the First Fruits of the Resurrection; that He later ascended to the Father; and that because of His death and by and through His resurrection every man born into the world since the beginning will be likewise literally resurrected.
The second of the two things to which we must all give full faith is that the Father and the Son actually and in truth and very deed appeared to the Prophet Joseph in a vision in the woods; that other heavenly visions followed to Joseph and to others; that the gospel and the Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God were in truth and fact restored to the earth from which they were lost by the apostasy of the primitive Church; that the Lord again set up His Church, through the agency of Joseph Smith; that the Book of Mormon is just what it professes to be; that to the Prophet came numerous revelations for the guidance, upbuilding, organization, and encouragement of the Church and its members; that the Prophet’s successors, likewise called of God, have received revelations as the needs of the Church have required, and that they will continue to receive revelations as the Church and its members, living the truth they already have, shall stand in need of more; that this is in truth The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; and that its foundation beliefs are the laws and principles laid down in the Articles of Faith. These facts also, and each of them, together with all things necessarily implied therein or flowing therefrom, must stand, unchanged, unmodified, without dilution, excuse, apology, or avoidance; they may not be explained away or submerged. Without these two great beliefs the Church would cease to be the Church. (J. Reuben Clark, “The Charted Course of the Church in Education,” Address to Seminary and Institute of Religion Leaders, 8 August 1938, p. 2 [PDF])
Of course, one is still free to define the confines of their beliefs so as to exclude these “two prime things” but I am in complete agreement with President Clark that “Any individual who does not accept the fulness of these doctrines as to Jesus of Nazareth or as to the restoration of the gospel and holy priesthood is not a Latter-day Saint.” (Ibid.)
Accepting that one must accept at least these “two prime things” there is a great deal upon which one can hold an opinion which may be at variance, even extreme variance, from the Latter-day Saints next to one in sacrament meeting. The statement that “Pure LDS orthodoxy can be a moving target, depending on which Mormon one talks to” (HWTD, p. 14) is indeed quite correct as many a member might define “Pure LDS orthodoxy” differently, adding to President Clark’s “two prime things” several others which they believe are incumbent upon those who profess membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Yet over and over again in conversation with those who are critical of the faith of the Latter-day Saints—whether in consequence of their affiliation with another faith or as a result of their separation from the Saints for one or another reason—I see attempts to define what the Saints believe, often in direct opposition to how the Saints themselves, individually and collectively, would define themselves. In some instances they attempt to define what is speculative and in others they attack the very core of LDS belief—the “two prime things”—redefining them in ways that render them far easier to assault.
Those familiar with informal fallacies of logic—with flaws in good reasoning—will recognize such as the straw man fallacy, “presenting an opponent’s position is as weak or misrepresented a version as possible so that it can easily be refuted.” (Peter A. Angeles, The Harper Collins Dictionary of Philosophy, Second Edition [New York, NY: HarperResource, 1992] p. 109) S. Morris Engel expands upon this basic definition:
it consists of imputing to one’s adversaries opinions a good deal more extreme than those they have set out and are willing to defend. Distorting the position in this way makes it appear ridiculous and thus easily overthrow. If the adversaries are tricked into defending a position that is more extreme that their original one, they are in all likelihood destined to fail. Although this is a popular trick in debating, it is a dishonest one. (S. Morris Engel, With Good Reason: An Introduction to Informal Fallacies, Sixth Edition [Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2000] p. 191)
In the legal arena, especially in relation to health insurance, it is common when defining the limits of a contract to include a “notice of discretionary authority” wherein the right to intepret the contract and the scope of its provisions is left to only one party, especially where the contract may be open to interpretation. This certainly seems applicable to LDS belief wherein individually and collectively we assert at least “two prime things” claiming “the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience.” (Article of Faith 1:11)
God even uses this principle in relation to Church government for in section 28 of the Doctrine and Covenants he makes certain to note in relation to the pretentions to revelation by Hiram Page that “no one shall be appointed to receive commandments and revelations in this church excepting my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., for he receiveth them even as Moses… For I have given him the keys of the mysteries, and the revelations which are sealed, until I shall appoint unto them another in his stead.” (vs. 2, 7) No one may receive revelation outside of the scope of his appointed influence; their discretionary authority extending no further than the capacity in which they are called to serve.
Therefore, we can be bold in declaring our discretionary authority, that in matters pertaining to the Church overall the Prophet and President of the Church retains sole discretionary authority to interpret and apply the revelations and further to receive additional revelation. And in matters where the Prophet, or those appointed to speak in such a capacity, have not defined a specific position we are the ultimate authority on what we believe.
I counted a few more than two articles of faith in Elder Clark’s two paragraphs. Why, incidentally, is it critical to accept that the Book of Mormon is “just what it professes to be,” while it evidently not as critical to accept the Book of Abraham as being “just what it professes to be”?
“Any individual who does not accept the fulness of these doctrines as to Jesus of Nazareth or as to the restoration of the gospel and holy priesthood is not a Latter-day Saint.”
Call me a Latter-day Saint, or call me a ham sandwich. I have faith in Christ and seek to learn and live the truth, as God gives me to see the truth. Whatever that makes me, that’s what I am.
True, I also “counted a few more than two articles of faith in Elder Clark’s two paragraphs.” However, it is President Clark who called his two paragraphs “two prime things,” not I. It is my understanding that President Clark was including not merely “two prime things” but “all things necessarily implied therein or flowing therefrom.” I even quoted the statement later on where he summarizes that the “two prime things” really boil down to “Jesus of Nazareth” and “the restoration of the gospel and the holy priesthood.” Obviously President Clark subsumes quite a lot under each of these “things.”
You ask “Why, incidentally, is it critical to accept that the Book of Mormon is ‘just what it professes to be,’ while it evidently not as critical to accept the Book of Abraham as being ‘just what it professes to be’?” I would respond that you are reading into President Clark’s statement an implication I believe is not there present. He states not only that we must accept “that the Book of Mormon is just what it professes to be” but that we must accept that “to the Prophet came numerous revelations for the guidance, upbuilding, organization, and encouragement of the Church and its members,” i.e. continuing revelation. And, as quoted above, not merely “These facts” but “all things necessarily implied therein or flowing therefrom.” Owing to the fact that the Book of Abraham is just as much a revealed translation as the Book of Mormon I would consider it as being one of the “numerous revelations” or one of those “things implied therein or flowing therefrom.” This of course is a perfect example of the principle outlined in the blog; I am asserting my claims to discretionary authority and in doing so declaring your understanding of President Clark’s words to be incomplete if not deficient.
If indeed you do not accept “the fulness of these doctrines as to Jesus of Nazareth or as to the restoration of the gospel and holy priesthood” then you may call yourself whatever you like but neither I, nor apparently President Clark, would consider you a “Latter-day Saint.” If you prefer “ham sandwich” then so be it but I would not brand you such (it just wouldn’t be Kosher). President Clark’s point is that it is these unique precepts which differentiate the Saints from those of other faiths, which define us as a “peculiar people,” which bind us to God under the “new and everlasting covenant.” Indeed, without an acceptance of “the restoration of the gospel and the holy priesthood” what point is there to considering LDS claims at all?
I would never presume to dictate to others what they should or should not believe (nor tell them that they do not in fact believe what they profess to) but there are indeed obvious quotients which define membership within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Although one may at ones discretion choose to accept or reject these quotients, that acceptance or rejection will indeed define their allegiances and their resultant designation. If you “have faith in Christ and seek to learn and live the truth, as God gives me to see the truth” then you are most certainly a Christian but I am not sure that such a basic recitation of belief defines you as a Latter-day Saint. To paraphrase C.S. Lewis you are attempting to cut the LDS cloth with only half a pair of President Clark’s scissors (large though each of his blades may indeed be).
That’s right; with religion it’s all or nothing. One thing that really irritates me is when people try to change the doctrine of their church, or say some is true and some isn’t! They must view churches the same as social clubs or charitable organizations, lacking revelation and leadership from God. If you’re a Catholic, you believe all the doctrine or you’re not a Catholic!
I know I’m a Latter-day Saint down to the very core of my being. And I differ in opinion on some small matters from others who are also Latter-day Saints down to their very cores.
The point to remember is that we, as a Church, really have very little doctrine — our doctrine doesn’t spread as broadly as some sometimes think. There are a great many threads of thought in the great tapestry that is Mormonism, and some members find more importance in some threads than in others. But the beauty of President Clark’s thought is that we are not required to have homogeneous thoughts on all the threads in the tapestry, except that there are two that are so fundamentally important for all of us.
Thus, I can still be a good Latter-day Saint if I don’t enthusiastically embrace another Saint’s opinion regarding the nature of our heavenly parentage, or his or her ranking of sins by seriousness, or his or her idea of footwear appropriate for sacrament meeting. Some Saints may take these matters VERY seriously, but they aren’t important. They don’t define us. We can differ in opinion on these matters.
We don’t have a board or group that establishes the doctrine on all these issues — and thank goodness for that! We’re better off with a smaller set of doctrines and the allowance for inspiration for everything else.
I almost never like it when someone else tells me what all Mormons believe or should believe, even when it is a good Latter-day Saint doing the speaking, if he or she goes very far beyond President Clark’s two matters.
Well Onika, I would with one caution endorse your statement. There are indeed certain things one must accept in order to be considered either a Latter-day Saint or a Catholic but there are many things one is not indeed required to accept and upon which one can differ with ones fellows. As long as one accepts the essentials, one is indeed an adherent.
“…but there are indeed obvious quotients which define membership within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”
Yes. Those quotients consist of one’s having been baptized and confirmed into the Church, remaining a member of record, and (possibly) continuing to self-identify as a Latter-day Saint. (That last item probably shears a few million off the Church’s official membership tally.)
Whether the late President Clark (whose opinion, he being dead, isn’t one of my major concerns) or another member thinks I’m Mormon enough to be classified under that name, is their own business. It’s God’s approval I need to care about, not man’s.
As for the issue of President Clark’s omission of acceptance in the literal truth of the story of the Book of Abraham’s provenance (i.e., that the records from which Joseph translated the Book consist of a record “by [Abraham’s] own hand upon papyrus), it’s just interesting. The weight of the evidence appears to many fair-minded people to be against that proposition, which leaves the faithful with a number of options for evaluating just what that book is, apart from it being a literal translation from the original second-millennium-B.C. papyrus manuscript. Again, why can a Mormon be considered to remain in good standing while entertaining one of those alternative accounts of the Book of Abraham’s origin, but considering an alternative account of the Book of Mormon’s origin turns him into a non-Latter-day Saint?
“Indeed, without an acceptance of “the restoration of the gospel and the holy priesthood” what point is there to considering LDS claims at all?”
At minimum, the point would be that Joseph Smith — by whatever means — established a fairly solid church, as churches go, and that may be enough for some people who see nothing better in the present state of religious things. “If you knows a better ‘ole, go to it.”
Or, a person who does not consider himself justified (given the state of the evidence — both ordinary and spiritual — as he perceives it) in declaring his acceptance of what may be declared essential points of Mormon doctrine, may nevertheless hold himself open to the possibility that he may yet receive further light and knowledge on those matters, which would require him to change his present thinking, and so (again, in the absence of any superior religious framework) affiliate himself with the Church in the hope of obtaining such further light.
“If you’re a Catholic, you believe all the doctrine or you’re not a Catholic!”
This overlooks the distinction between doctrines with a dogmatic versus a prudential basis.
If I may clarify, the reference to President Clark being dead is a reference to President Benson’s “The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.”
To me doctrine is the basic essentials like whether one needs to be baptised and whether there is a proper way to do it. Doctrine is what makes the differences between religions. It also includes what is considered a sin, which some LDS people would like to change. I’m sorry, God doesn’t change, and if he said it is a sin 2000 yrs ago, it is still a sin. You can’t decide what a sin is or isn’t just because you don’t agree with God. If you’re going to do that then start your own church, which is what Paul did 😉
You’re oversimplifying the matter Thomas. You define the “quotients” of membership “as having been baptized and confirmed into the Church, remaining a member of record, and (possibly) continuing to self-identify as a Latter-day Saint.”
The difficulty with such a statement is that, previous to baptism you are interviewed by a Bishop, or if an investigator usually by a District Leader and perhaps the Mission President. In the case of both a child of appropriate age and an investigator you are asked specific questions although these may be phrased more simplistically for a child:
1. Do you believe that God is our Eternal Father? Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the Savior and Redeemer of the world?
2. Do you believe the Church and gospel of Jesus Christ have been restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith? Do you believe that [current Church President] is a prophet of God? What does this mean to you?
3. What does it mean to you to repent? Do you feel that you have repented of your past transgressions?
4. Have you ever committed a serious crime? If so, are you now on probation or parole? Have you ever participated in an abortion? a homosexual relationship?
5. You have been taught that membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints includes living gospel standards. What do you understand of the following standards? Are you willing to obey them?
a. The law of chastity, which prohibits any sexual relationship outside the bonds of a legal marriage between a man and a woman.
b. The law of tithing.
c. The Word of Wisdom.
d. The Sabbath day, including partaking of the sacrament weekly and rendering service to fellow members.
6. When you are baptized, you covenant with God that you are willing to take upon yourself the name of Christ and keep His commandments throughout your life. Are you ready to make this covenant and strive to be faithful to it?
If one is honest one agrees to much of President Clark’s “two prime things.” In fact, the first two questions encompass the core of his “two prime things.” Further, a member in full fellowship also holds a temple recommend obtained through an interview with both his Bishop and his Stake President. Once again one is faced with a series of questions:
1. Do you believe in God, the Eternal Father, in his Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost; and do you have a firm testimony of the restored gospel?
2. Do you sustain the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the prophet, seer, and revelator; and do you recognize him as the only person on the earth authorized to exercise all priesthood keys?
3. Do you sustain the other General Authorities and the local authorities of the Church?
4. Do you live the law of chastity?
5. Is there anything in your conduct relating to members of your family that is not in harmony with the teachings of the Church?
6. Do you affiliate with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or do you sympathize with the precepts of any such group or individual?
7. Do you earnestly strive to do your duty in the Church; to attend your sacrament, priesthood, and other meetings; and to obey the rules, laws, and commandments of the gospel?
8. Are you honest in your dealings with your fellowmen?
9. Are you a full-tithe payer?
10. Do you keep the Word of Wisdom?
11. Have you ever been divorced or are you now separated from your spouse under order of a civil court? If yes, (a) – Are you current in your support payments and other financial obligations for family members, as specified by court order or in other written, binding commitments? (b) Were there any circumstances of transgression in connection
with your divorce or separation that have not been previously resolved with your bishop?
12. If you have received your temple endowment — (a) Do you keep all the covenants that you made in the temple? (b) Do you wear the authorized garments both day and night?
13. Has there been any sin or misdeed in your life that should have been resolved with priesthood authorities but has not?
14. Do you consider yourself worthy in every way to enter the temple and participate in temple ordinances?
Once again questions one and two center on President Clark’s statement. Unfortunately it is not merely “God’s approval” one “need[s] to care about” as God has endowed men with authority to act for an in His behalf in preaching “the Gospel and the ordinances thereof”. We are accountable to these men for the discharge of the duties bestowed upon us by them and for our worthiness to serve in the Church and even to retain our membership where our conduct may have compromised such.
It is my personal opinion that knowing “Joseph Smith… established a fairly solid church” simply isn’t enough. This renders The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints no more entitled to the claim to being “the only true and living Church” than any other religious institution of similar longevity or comparable organizational structure. Catholicism would be quite a contender if not entitled merely on the basis of its superior longevity.
As to holding out for “further light and knowledge” that is indeed up to the individual. I personally believe that one should not accept the responsibilities and covenants of the Gospel lightly and so if uncertain perhaps it is simply best to attend without formal commitment until one does indeed come to a knowledge of the truth of the restored Gospel. In this way one avoids accountability and possible consequences related to failing to be true to those covenants. I certainly do not believe, and am in complete agreement with President Clark here as well, that such persons should be teaching anyone.
The Church is indeed more concerned with conduct than with belief but the repetitious nature of the “two prime things” within interview questions meant to insure knowledge of and commitment to certain tenants of the restored Gospel is fairly convincing evidence that there are indeed non-negotiable quotients and that President Clark does a pretty fine job of defining them.
I should clarify that if indeed you are stating that all that is required to remain on the membership records of the Church is baptism and confirmation and refraining from having ones records removed you are correct and I never meant to dispute such.
However, there is I think a world of difference between being on the books and being true to ones covenants with Christ. In the words of Stephen E. Robinson, “We cannot endure to the end in those covenants without enduring to the end in that church.” In fact, a fuller excerpt seems apropos:
“Occasionally, those who cannot keep their commitments seek to justify themselves by separating loyalty to Christ from loyalty to his church, but this is impossible. Our covenants in the restored gospel of Christ are covenants which specifically include our relationship with his church and which are administered through his church—The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We cannot endure to the end in those covenants without enduring to the end in that church. This is made clear by the Savior himself: ‘And now, behold, whosoever is of my church, and endureth of my church to the end, him will I establish upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.’ (D&C 10:69; emphasis added.)” (Stephen E. Robinson, “Enduring to the End,” Ensign 23/10 (October 1993)
No matter what one “self-identifies” as it is ones conduct and commitment that betrays their affiliation.
Who said anything about keeping or breaking covenants? Isn’t it possible for a person who cannot give his honest assent to the official account of the Book of Mormon’s origin (because he is genuinely convinced that the weight of all the evidence presently available to him is contrary) to live up to the covenants he made at baptism and in the temple? Which is the covenant by which one agrees to declare belief in something — whether one is persuaded of it or not — versus *do* something? Your approach is like that of the born-agains, who elevate Christian identity over Christian life, paying more attention to tribal affiliation than to personal virtue. What we believe is less important than what we do, and what we do is less important than what we become.
“I personally believe that one should not accept the responsibilities and covenants of the Gospel lightly and so if uncertain perhaps it is simply best to attend without formal commitment until one does indeed come to a knowledge of the truth of the restored Gospel.”
I probably accepted the covenant of baptism less lightly than most eight-year-olds; the rest of my Targeteer class seemed to think I was an insufferable goody-goody. Honestly, though: How many eight-year-olds do you seriously expect enter into the covenant of baptism with a sure and certain knowledge that the Church is everything it says it is? Do you seriously expect a child to say “well, Bishop, I’m not quite convinced of all that just yet; can’t we hold off on the baptism for a bit?”
As for the covenants taken in adulthood, your sentiment is contradicted by the widespread “Candle of the Lord” school of thought, in which the counsel is to take leaps of faith to profess belief, trusting that the Lord will follow up with confirmatory spiritual evidence. As hard as it may be for some to accept, *it doesn’t always work out that way.*
If “a testimony is found in the bearing of it,” then answering “yes” to the testimony questions in one’s first temple recommend interview, despite a felt lack of true conviction, is not only permissible, but actually counselled by a special witness of Christ. President McKay himself stated that he didn’t obtain his conviction of the Church’s truth until well into his mission service (which I believe meant he’d made his endowment covenants without such conviction).
“This renders The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints no more entitled to the claim to being “the only true and living Church” than any other religious institution of similar longevity or comparable organizational structure.”
And therefore? Is the Catholic Church worthless, in your view, because its claim to be the one true church is inaccurate?
Onika,
“If you’re going to do that then start your own church, which is what Paul did.”
Paul didn’t start his own church from scratch. If you take the position that Christianity is actually Paul’s creation, you’ll have to acknowledge that Paul, like a cuckoo, laid his ecclesiastical egg into the existing nest of the Jerusalem apostles’ church.
“Occasionally, those who cannot keep their commitments seek to justify themselves by separating loyalty to Christ from loyalty to his church…”
Typical defensiveness. If someone’s religious thinking isn’t with the program, it simply *must* be because he wants to justify himself in sleeping with his secretary. enemies, and to disparage their character.
But by that logic, aren’t you vulnerable to anybody whose religious observance is stricter than yours? Abdul will see your Word of Wisdom and raise you halal. A Jain will see your Law of Chastity and raise you outright celibacy.
Clearly, the only thing keeping you from accepting the manifest truth of the Islamic revelation is your inability to give up your lust for bacon.
Thomas, I’m afraid you’ve missed the entire point of Christian discipleship. Either that or I’ve totally misunderstood your statement: “What we believe is less important than what we do, and what we do is less important than what we become.” Were you simply re-stating how you see the born-again approach? Your responses don’t really make clear whether this is your position or your re-phrasing of your view of the born-again position. Having not clarified, it seems the statement represents your own view.
Even from a cursory perusal of what the scriptures have to offer, it seems plain that what we believe isn’t just the motivating force behind what we do on the road to becoming something, but it is also the force which empowers us to do some of those very things. Absent faith, only so much lasting good can be done. As faith without works is dead, so too are works without faith.
I might, for instance, see the horrible condition of my people in Egypt and therefore organize a resistance movement to free them from bondage. And it would be commendable for me to do so. But that can only get me so far in both doing and being the very things which are so central to a much more important mission. Having no core beliefs, I might become discouraged when, after several plagues have failed to dissuade Pharaoh, my people are still in slavery. But even if I remain persistent in freeing my people until success eventually comes, I’d find myself in quite the bind when, stuck between a sea and Pharaoh’s forces, my only real option is to split the sea in two and walk across. Without faith that God can so much as consistently reveal truth to man, what are the odds that the even more preposterous thought of stopping running water will cross my mind, anyway? But then if I do get ahold of such an idea, why try? Having assumed at best a God whose prophets reveal some truths while preaching as doctrine some inspiring half-truths, I’ve got no idea what category this part-the-sea idea falls in, and I need to know quickly. Moreover, if I don’t know when and to whom God reveals truth, how do I know when and to whom God delegates his authority when it’s needed? Do I have authority to command the elements of Someone Else’s creation to move? How do I know? And if I, in my shaky, uncertain, let’s-see-if-this-works voice, command the water to move, is it going to move? I might go on, but I think we know the answer.
I’ve picked an extreme example, yes, but it’s not altogether different from the every day Mormon experience. If I’m an official, on-record member of the church, there are countless opportunities for me to do and be good (a la “Let my people go”) without believing in either of President Clark’s two quotients. But I’d also miss at least as many opportunities to do and be even better (similar to parting the sea, revealing the Law, etc.). These are opportunities I wouldn’t miss if I had faith that by acting on a spiritual prompting, scriptural directive, or Bishop’s instructions the promised blessings would come, whether that blessing is as simple as peace, comfort, and strengthened friendships, or as dramatic as safe passage across an otherwise impassable sea.
President Clark was right, in the end. Christian discipleship is about more than a piece of paper. In the final analysis, to truly be a Latter-day Saint, one must live the first principle of the Gospel: And that’s faith (Clark’s two quotients, you’ll recall, are about faith. Faith in Christ and faith that Joseph Smith was His prophet). So to modify your statement: “What we believe enables what we do, and what we do is the fruit of what we become.”
The statement in question is a paraphrase of Elder Oaks’ October 2000 Conference address “The Challenge to Become.” You are correct that what we believe can guide us it what we do — but it is by doing that we become, not the other way around. We practice virtue, in order to become virtuous.
I distinguish between faith in unprovable First Principles — the things which reason, by its nature, can’t measure — and things to which the tools of reason can be applied. I believe the former kind of faith is unshakable by anything but sin; a person whose heart is righteous (having been made such by acceptance of the Savior’s declaration that he has overcome the world) will never have any compelling reason to doubt.
“Faith” runs onto more dangerous ground the more territory it seeks to defend. When it demands acceptance of things by “faith” that are capable of being evaluated by reason — such as matter of biology, geology, or astronomy — faith has basically a pre-Lavell Edwards-era BYU football record. When you extend part of your house of faith onto such a shaky foundation, you’re placing yourself in spiritual danger.
Sectarian faith — faith that requires acceptance of propositions that, by their nature, negate other creeds’ articles of faith — is self-negating. Accepting such a proposition by faith, requires you to declare that the other man’s faith is not a sound basis for his beliefs. But if his, why not yours?
President Clark’s statement represents one school of Mormon thought, dominant now but not always so in the past or necessarily in the future. My approach builds on an old LDS Sunday School manual commissioned by President McKay:
“Young people sometimes doubt the truth of the Gospel or some part of it, and feeling the worthy desire to be sincere, they cease to be active in the Church. The answer to them is to be sincere always. One must never violate one’s integrity, whatever it may cost. But must one believe all or nothing? Must one cut off Church participation-the great source of righteousness in one’s life and in the community, because there is some doctrine doubted or disbelieved? Rather, is it not wisdom to begin, not with doubts and faults, but with the simple truths and virtues one can believe, then move on from there to others? Surely no one would claim to know all the Gospel. Great truths are always just around the corner for those who seek. Jesus told us to knock, seek, and ask, not just once, but continuously. One step at a time applies to progress in the Gospel as it does to education or any worthwhile achievement. One is not a hypocrite if he has honest questions and is active in the Church at the same time. The leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would offer this suggestion:
Start where you are. What do you believe? Start with that and take it as far as you can down life’s highway. Another truth will meet you at nearly every bend in the road. God has never intended that an honest mind should be humiliated or made unwelcome in the Church by any other member because of honest inquiry. Above all, keep the virtues of integrity, sincerity, and genuineness. Nothing else can be right in a man’s life if he is not sincere.”
So to those who would read good people effectively out of the Church because they cannot in honesty, given the present state of the evidence available to them, accept all of President Clark’s two-plus articles of critical faith, your input is duly considered, but in the end, it’s our church too.
Well, I do not believe the “weight of evidence” leads to the inevitable conclusion that the “fair-minded” person need reject the traditional account of the origins of the Book of Mormon or the more controversial Book of Abraham. Rather, that there exists evidence both for and against the traditional account and that each individual weighs that evidence and reaches a verdict.
I am not sure which “evidence” you feel weighs so heavily in favor of some “alternative account” but I have yet to be presented with evidence so weighty that it precludes any and all possibility of the traditional account of the origins of either book. There exists “a climate in which belief may flourish.”
You of course may have concluded otherwise but I see little point in accepting the Church’s claim to being the “only true and living church” if indeed that is not what the evidence demonstrates it to be. If indeed the evidence demonstrates it to be otherwise than I would consider ones integrity to demand that one gravitate toward that which is the “true and living church.”
Joseph Smith himself asked in a Kirland High Council meeting “Take away the book of Mormon, and the revelations, and where is our religion?” The question was rhetorical and you can pretty much guess his response: “We have none.” Again, the Book of Mormon and the revelations become central to the veracity of the restored Gospel; you cannot escape that simple fact.
You have criticized my born-again approach (your words) juxtaposing it against that “actually counselled by a special witness of Christ.” However I do not believe that Elder Packard would advocate one to a course of action which one does not have some conviction of (even if you can no more than desire to believe). Certainly he says if you lack complete knowledge you can take a step into the dark and in doing so receive confirmation but he assures one of such confirmation. You seem to contend that believing the the traditional account of the origins of the Book of Mormon on faith and acting thereon will not result in the promised confirmation so just who is discounting counsel from a “special witness of Christ?”
You feel that President McKay would have you remain in the Church despite your misgivings and guess what, I would prefer that you remained as well (although I would not encourage you to serve in a teaching capacity and thus compromise your integrity testifying of that which you do not believe). However, President McKay also indicates that truths will come. Have they? Have you experienced “pure intelligence flowing into you” or found that truth around the next bend? Is it possible that you have not entertained all of the evidence available and that there is indeed the possibility that the traditional account is indeed what transpired? Can you prove that it was not? If you can come that far, what stands between stepping into the dark and seeing your pathway lit just a little ahead.
We can debate all day, attempting to play one apostle or prophet against another in a chess game intended to establish that one should or should not accept President Clark’s “two prime things”; but in the end if indeed the evidence militates against the truth of the traditional claims then it is all a sham and there is little point quoting one deluded individual over another, no matter how wise their words might appear.
Either Joseph saw God and Jesus or he did not. Either the Book of Mormon is a translation of an ancient record through miraculous means or it is not. Either the Book of Abraham is what it claims to be, “The writings of Abraham while in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus,” or it is not.
Certainly there may be mitgating factors to explain certain abberations but in the end the core of these claims must be retained or there really is no point.
Let me elaborate a bit more on the point I am trying to make. Not only is it “eternal truth” that “God will force no man to heaven” but it is just as eternally true that God will “never force the human mind.” If indeed one has determined that the “weight of the evidence” militates against the traditional accounts of the origins of the Book of Mormon then indeed God will not “force the human mind” to conclude otherwise.
Revelation is as much a product of our sincerity and intent as it is a loving Father’s desire to bestow intelligence upon His children. If we have already determined that an “alternative account” is indeed an accurate portrayal God is not going to tell us otherwise. It is for this reason that inviting the critic to pray about the Book of Mormon is a useless endeavour. One must have a “sincere heart,” “real intent” and “faith in Christ.” Without all three aspects of this triumvirate truth via the Holy Ghost will remain illusive.
Joseph Smith realized that it was only through God that one could answer the questions such as “What is to be done? Who of all these parties are right; or, are they all wrong together? If any one of them be right, which is it, and how shall I know it?” He came to this realization through James 1:5 but James’ advice amounts to more than merely an invitation to ask and an assurance of receipt of a response.
It states that one should “ask in faith, nothing wavering.” It speaks of “he that wavereth” being akin to “a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.” Such a man, “he that wavereth,” is referred to as “A double minded man” who is “unstable in all his ways.” Such a man should not “think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord.” It reminds me of Elijah’s poignant question “How long halt ye between two opinions?”
Indeed, “How long?” The issue is similarly polarized, “if the LORD be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him.” To me it is just that simple. In stating it so I am not inferring that you are not following God but merely that you appear to be stumbling through the darkness blindly clinging to the the hope of a ray of sunshine while ignoring the candle in your pocket. Elder Packard’s candle is faith my friend. Faith, “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”
Matt, you and I have a fundamental disagreement about the nature of faith. For rhetorical effect, I am about to grossly oversimplify and caricature your view, so I beg your pardon in advance for that. But it strikes me as defining “faith” more or less as “Shut up and get with the program.”
Sectarian faith negates itself. By having “faith” in the notion that the LDS Church is the one true church, a person also inherently declares that a Catholic’s faith that *he* belongs to the one true church, is vain. But if one man’s faith is an unreliable basis for his beliefs, why not another’s?
I believe a person is justified in exercising faith in universally-applicable divine principles, such as the basic notion that there is a God in heaven who wills our happiness. You might be surprised just how much of religion and morality can be extrapolated from that basic confession. That faith is impregnable to anything “so-called science” could ever throw against it; by definition, we’re presuming the existence of things beyond the reach of unaided human sense or reason to discover or disprove. So it truly is a choice to believe, or not.
I hold that the choice to believe is worthier than the choice not to believe; unbelief necessarily implies a kind of despair, in that even a hardy “Invictus”-style atheist must confess that in this world, injustice will prevail no matter how successful we may be in reducing its sphere. And so I choose to believe in a Redeemer whose kingdom is not of this world alone.
Faith is, in fact, “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” I understand this to mean that faith is for the things that *can’t* be seen — that are not susceptible to being measured by unaided reason. We are expected to use our heads for the specifics. Faith isn’t just an arbitrary decision to stop asking questions at a certain point, or to suspend or reason. Faith, properly understood, informs reason, and allows reason to consider a whole line of inquiry — the things of eternity — that would otherwise be beyond reason’s reach.
You ask whether I have “experienced pure intelligence flowing into [me].” Again, I choose to believe that certain experiences in my life originate from outside my own mind. A neuroscientist could tell me that during these experiences, the same part of my brain lit up as lights up in a Catholic nun experiencing a mystical encounter, but the fact that these experiences have a mechanical expression doesn’t necessarily mean that their nature is solely mechanical — that they couldn’t ultimately have a divine source.
But the kind of undeniable confirmations of the LDS Church’s exclusive truth that I hear reported by other members? Something I not only could distinguish from my own thoughts and reflexes, but also from the mystical experiences reported by followers of other religions? No. That kind of singular experience is as foreign to me as the sensation of being drunk. I have no idea what the mystics with real fire in their eyes are talking about. That doesn’t mean what they’ve sensed isn’t real — it means that I haven’t sensed it. I know it, and I know God knows it.
A few months ago, I listened to a woman testify weepingly of how she felt the Spirit when, on vacation in New England, she heard about a relic I recognized from her remarks as the Fall River skeleton — the copper-armored remains Longfellow identified as Viking. Do you, who are (I presume) committed to the limited-geography model, accept this as an authentic confirmation by the Spirit that Lehites ranged all the way to Massachusetts? If not, why not? Are you wiser, or spiritually more attuned, than that sister?
It is not “quenching the Spirit” to question whether people are interpreting spiritual promptings correctly. What that sister in testimony meeting felt, may have been an authentic spiritual witness — but it was testifying to something other than what she took it to mean. It may simply have been the Lord’s confirmation that her present spiritual course — consisting of doing her best to live in accordance with the gospel, as she found it in this Church, which surely has at least core of Christian truth regardless of the worst its enemies might say — is acceptable to Him.
And that’s my objection to sectarianism. It can’t avoid discrediting faith, or sacred spiritual experiences, in anything but each sect’s exclusive doctrines. You are impelled to presume that I am “stumbling through the darkness blindly” — that I cannot possibly have received genuine spiritual whisperings calling me to faith in Christ, because those whisperings never said anything about the antiquity of the Book of Mormon.
You don’t mean to set yourself up as superior to me, but you can’t avoid it. You simply must be more spiritually attuned, wiser, more disciplined, or more righteous than I am. You must believe that I approached my years of prayer about the Book of Mormon without the requisite sincerity, real intent, and faith in Christ. I must be, in the words of another self-appointed Defender of the Faith, a “cultural Mormon stinking up the place.” Which may or may not be true, but I can’t help thinking that there must be a flaw somewhere in this model. It seems to have an inevitable tendency to create enmity among people.
In response to your list of “either…or’s”, in your penultimate posting, I say: true — and thus? If (as you presumably believe) the Catholic Church makes pretentions to exclusive authority in which it is not justified, and has supported these claims at time by outright frauds like the Donation of Constantine, does it follow that the Catholic Church is in its entirety a worthless fraud?
“Is it possible that you have not entertained all of the evidence available and that there is indeed the possibility that the traditional account is indeed what transpired? Can you prove that it was not? If you can come that far, what stands between stepping into the dark and seeing your pathway lit just a little ahead?”
The same thing that stands between your stepping into the dark and accepting Mohammed’s revelation. Can you prove Mohammed made it all up?
More personally, what stands between me and stepping, *yet again* into the dark which your school contends there is a spiritual confirmation awaiting, is several years of stepping into the dark and darn near killing myself tripping over all kinds of debris stacked back in there. How many baths would Naaman have to have taken in the Jordan before he could have fairly questioned Elisha’s promise? My figurative Jordan is a figurative stew of sloughed-off leprous body parts. You can only go *splat* at the bottom of so many leaps of faith before you try leaping in a different direction. As I have, and it works.
Matt, again:
Which is it, by the way? Am I wishy-washily “halting between two opinions,” refusing to take a stand as to the provenance of the Book of Mormon (as you put it in the fourth paragraph of your last post), or am I a stubborn mule who has his mind too made up to be changed, as you suggested in the first and second paragraphs of the same post?
As far as “forcing the human mind” goes, are you suggesting that a person whose initial impression of the Book of Mormon is skeptical, is forever precluded from being sent spiritual promptings to counter that initial perception? Is providing spiritual evidence to counter rational evidence “forcing” somebody’s mind?
You seem to suggest that a person’s initial reaction to the Book of Mormon is determinative — that when a person is left with skeptical first impression, not even a sincere prayer — a prayer to “help thou my unbelief” — will be availing. The poor schlub just isn’t one of the Elect, because to the honest in heart, the difficult parts of the Book of Mormon just don’t register, and getting a spiritual confirmation is basically just a rubber-stamp of their initial impression.
I do not believe that the notion that there exists only one “true and living church” is self-negating. A self-negating notion would be a notion that negates itself. It is your claim that in stating that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is declared to be “the only true and living church” that it must also simultaneously deny that, for instance, Catholicism constitutes such. This is true enough and logically follows from such a declaration but although exclusionary it is far from self-negating. One would have to simultaneously hold to the position that there is only one “true and living church” and that both LDS Christianity and Catholicism are, each individually, that “true and living church.” That would be contradictory for it professes one but acknowledges two where those two have quite disparate views of their authenticity and divine approbation.
You seem to infer that “Sectarian faith,” i.e. that faith which adheres to a specific doctrine or principle and through doing so excludes another is somehow deficient but Christianity is and always has been inherently exclusionary. Yet in accepting an exclusionary position one need not deny that although there is only one, God can indeed use the many as a vehicle to the one, as a stepping stone to the fullness. This was indeed the point of the Law of Moses, a “schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ.” One can indeed become so focused upon the Law that one fails to recognize the Messiah, metaphorically speaking, and focus upon the light and knowledge available in the many as opposed to moving on to the one but such does not reduce the one nor does it negate the one. God’s authority and divine approbation remain only with the one heedless of the value which may be found in the many.
You seem to feel that every declaration of faith is valid, that every religious experience needs to be accepted as authentic if any are to be accepted as authentic. Although I might object to how broad you are spreading your net I have no objection to the concept in general. I do not question that God calls certain men and women down different paths which are sometimes divergent and that they have authentic experiences with the divine which lead them to follow that particular path. But stating that God works in and through the many still does not negate the one. Although only one many have God authority and approval, God may still use the many to draw those who otherwise would not accept the one as close to Him as is possible.
I find it fascinating that you feel my acceptance of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as “the only true and living church” necessarily implies that “the Catholic Church is in its entirety a worthless fraud” or that I cannot accept that there was truth in “Mohammed’s revelation.” But neither proposition is true. Joseph Smith stated that “One of the grand fundamental principles of ‘Mormonism’ is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may.” Further that such truth was not exclusively to be found within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: “Have the Presbyterians any truth? Yes. Have the Baptists, Methodists, etc., any truth? Yes. They all have a little truth mixed with error. We should father all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up, or we shall not come out true ‘Mormons.’”
I accept that I may find truth in both Catholicism and Islam but in accepting such it does not reduce the validity or diminish the authority of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Yes, at some point I must deny that the many possess what is only within the purview of the one but this certainly does not constitute a wholesale rejection or a sweeping denial of the many.
I admit I have difficulty relating to you plight and you seem to be intent on interpreting my position in as “sectarian” a manner as is possible. Perhaps that is inevitable as many of my responses have been laced with the “sectarian” rhetoric you decry. In truth I have no idea whether or not your importuning has been possessed of the requisite intent and sincerity to garner a response. Perhaps they have, perhaps they haven’t but it does appear that you place far too much weight on “alternative explanations” where such are far from proven.
Only you can answer whether you are indeed “wishy-washily ‘halting between two opinions’” or “a stubborn mule who has his mind too made up to be changed.” I did not mean to imply that either was the case but that both are possibilities. You may be either, both or neither. But you have made clear that you have come to a conclusion in relation the both the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham and I might suggest that you suspend that judgment and entertain the possibility that they are indeed what they claim to be. If you do indeed remain open-minded in that regard then I do not see where God would be precluded from communicating to your mind and heart additional truth.
Yet for me it was not some single event, some epiphany which led me to accept the exclusivist claims of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Rather, it was a slow progression to that understanding which began by seeing how living it changed me. Joseph stated that a man would get nearer to God by abiding by the precepts of the Book of Mormon than by abiding by the precepts of any other book and I found this to be true. Accepting my experience as veridical I concluded that there was unique value within the Book of Mormon. Perhaps you will never receive “the kind of undeniable confirmations of the LDS Church’s exclusive truth that I hear reported by other members,” I certainly didn’t. Perhaps you have but have yet to appreciate the subtleties of the still small voice? I couldn’t say. Yet I have no doubt that God does communicate with us by means best suited to us.
Most of what I have offered are ruminations, approaches to your responses usually focusing upon what I see as a possible deficiency which might be creating a barrier to your receiving a deeper insight into the exclusivist claims and authenticity of the Church and its sacred records. I have no idea how things will pan out in the overall weighing of our orthodoxy versus orthopraxy but I am very certain God is more concerned with the latter.
I should say however that I still stand by President Clark’s statement. I would not consider you “a Latter-day Saint” regardless of your inclusion on the official records. Rather, you are, it would appear, a sincere and committed investigator who sees value in the community of the Saints and in the restored Gospel but still remains uncertain as to some of its claims.
Interesting that although we can be baptized at eight years of age we still must experience conversion like any other individual interested in assessing the truth of the restored Gospel…
Matt, I appreciate your willingness to engage, but of course I give your reluctance to call me a “Latter-day Saint” about the same weight I assign to an evangelical Christian’s reluctance to call either of us a Christian, because of our non-acceptance of the Nicene or Athanasian or Chalcedonian formulations of the Trinity.
As regarding your belief that people like me should not hold teaching callings — if and when you serve as a bishop, that will be your business. Rest assured that I have never compromised my integrity in any calling.
I think you misunderstand my statement that sectarian *faith* is self-negating. What I mean is that if “faith” is the basis for one man’s belief in “A”, and the basis for another man’s belief in “not A”, then the “faith” they’re both exercising is self-evidently unreliable. One or both must be wrong — and neither has any objective means of knowing which is which.
That is not to say that all religious traditions or experiences are equally valid. I find Islam, for example, impossible to square with the religious value of moral liberty that I conclude flows inevitably from a basic confession of faith in a just and loving God. The point is that, if we conclude that one religion is more correct than another, we must have a reason for our conclusion. If all we have is “faith” — in the sense that we make up our minds that our religion is the right one — then its a push: “Faith,” alone, could just as well make us Muslim as Mormon.
Likewise, I may not have been clear in my discussion of Catholicism. My point is not that, if the LDS Church is true, the Catholic Church is worthless. My point is to ask why, if the Catholic Church can be other than “worthless” if it is wrong in its distinctive claims (such as its pretension to an exclusive Magisterium), why must the LDS Church be the kingdom of God or nothing? If the LDS Church must be all true or all a fraud, why not the Catholic Church? Why the different standards?
“Joseph stated that a man would get nearer to God by abiding by the precepts of the Book of Mormon than by abiding by the precepts of any other book and I found this to be true. Accepting my experience as veridical I concluded that there was unique value within the Book of Mormon.”
I appreciate the candid account of your conversion process (and also the relished opportunity to go look up a new word!) How, exactly, did you “find [it] to be true” that you got nearer to God by abiding by the precepts of the Book of Mormon than by any other book”? Did you give the other books an equal shake? The Koran? The Rig Veda? Aquinas’s Summa Theologica?
Living the principles of the Book of Mormon may well have a profound influence on people’s lives. I’m sure I am much the happier for living a Mormon lifestyle than I would if I had lived without God in the world, based on observations of those who take the latter path. I’m less sure another sound religious tradition wouldn’t have worked just as well, based similarly on my observations of their adherents. Therefore, it’s uncertain that I could in justice conclude that it’s the uniquely Mormon aspects of a Mormon’s religion that make him prosper spiritually, and even less certain that this logically compels a conclusion that the LDS Church is the one true church.