I’ve been a volunteer member of FAIR for years. It has been interesting to watch the reaction of many people—especially the critics—to the work done by apologists in general and FAIR in particular. Some of the reaction is quite comical and, I believe, shows that some people “just don’t have a clue” (as one of my friends used to say).
One thing I’ve noticed is that many critics express amazement and astonishment at the things that FAIR is willing to discuss and consider. I often see reactions among those who have left the Church similar to the following:
- FAIR believes that the prophets are fallible? That’s blasphemous!
- Those FAIR people are proposing a limited flood? That goes against Mormon doctrine! (Notice the small “d.” Not talking about the book here.)
- FAIR says it’s OK to believe in an old earth? No way! The Church only believes in an earth about 6,000 years old!
- FAIR says the Church allows belief in evolution? Everyone knows that the Church is anti-evolution!
- The Garden of Eden may not have been in Missouri? That’s not Mormon doctrine!
- Joseph Smith translated using a rock in a hat? I was never taught that!
The list could go on and on and on. (Actually, it has gone on and on and on for the years I’ve been an observer.) The Church is nowhere near as dogmatic as some critics believe it to be. Individual members, including leaders, are given quite a bit of latitude in their beliefs. Where there is not revelation, speculation is often rife.
One of my favorites is the inevitable conclusion among some critics that “once the Church finds out what FAIR is really doing, they will shut them down.” I guess ten years of existence, multiple mentions in the Church News, and links on the LDS.org website doesn’t count for evidence as to whether the Church knows about FAIR. Of course, FAIR has always publicly stated that if the Church asks us to shut our doors, we will do it in an instant—we are supportive of the Church and don’t want to do anything of which the Church would disapprove.
Even prominent critics see “good” in the work we are doing, as they see FAIR helping people leave the Church. Consider this quote from Simon Southerton, made just within the past couple of days on a website popular among critics:
FAIR seems to help many who are struggling to make up their minds to leave. If I had my wish, FAIR and FARMS apologists would be given the opportunity to educate the masses in the church about how mistaken people have been about the Book of Mormon narrative.
Simon’s not alone; I’ve seen similar statements from critics over the years, with some saying that FAIR is doing more to help get people out of the Church than any other source. (Perhaps Simon and other critics would like to put their money where their mouth is and actually donate to FAIR. After all, that will help speed up the good they see in FAIR’s efforts.)
In my experience, people who say that FAIR (or FARMS) helped them out of the Church were one of two types of people: those who were already heading out and just perfunctorily checked FAIR on their way or those who are so black-and-white in their beliefs that they couldn’t handle the uncertainty and sometimes ambiguity of the non-doctrinal areas of the Church. (This conclusion is based on nothing more than observation; there are no formal studies in this area, although one would be interesting.)
The fact of the matter is, FAIR addresses difficult questions and criticisms. That we are able to do so drives some critics crazy. That we are able to do so and still maintain faith in a Church they officially left is simply beyond their comprehension.
-Allen
Please point me to one official church publication or address by a general authority in the last 50 years that questions the reality of a universal flood? I can show you many that affirm a universal flood.
People’s beliefs about what the church teaches are often too simplistic, but they don’t come out of nowhere.
(This is not a criticism of FAIR in general…I hope you guys keep it up.)
Don’t have one on hand, but you might check the link I provided in the article.
-Allen
I checked the link, and as I expected I didn’t find anything. So your critics are right…the universal flood is part of “Mormon doctrine,” where “doctrine” just means “teachings.” I’m not sure why you find this “comical” or conclude that these people “don’t have a clue.”
You checked the link, but did you read it? It clearly states that belief in a global flood is not required among the LDS. Just because it has been taught, including by some leaders, does not make it “doctrine.”
I find it comical because people try to hold the LDS to teachings, no matter how esoteric or obscure, that they absolutely know must be followed in order to be a good, believing LDS. Just like it would be strange (or, indeed, comical) for me to tell you what you must believe, it is just as strange for others—particularly those who have ostensibly left the faith—to tell me what I must believe.
Does that help?
-Allen
Yes, of course I read the link. I was looking for evidence of any official church publication or address by a general authority in the last 50 years that questions the reality of a universal flood.
I was taught about the universal flood in primary, Sunday school, and seminary. I’ve read about it in the Ensign. If I search the church website I find this:
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/gs/f/21
And against this you provide….an anonymous statement on the FAIR wiki??
Of course, everyone is free to believe whatever they want about this and most other things–it’s not of central importance. But it’s just dumb to deny that the church taught and has continued to teach in recent decades that there was a universal flood. So how is it not doctrine?
Allen
I have to take exception to your use of the word critic to describe what is blatantly anti-Mormon. Critic is a term usually reserved in academic and professional circles to refer to someone who undertakes an honest and dispassionate review of work submitted by others within his/her subject area. Legitimate critics provide their opinions based on their acknowledged expertise. Anti-Mormons, on the other hand, have an agenda. It is not based on recognized expertise. They do not submit their work for review by widely acknowledged peers in their subject area but rather to an untrained public with the intent to defame and spread misinformation. Anti-Mormon refers to one’s behavior not his theology. At best, anti-Mormons could be considered propagandists. There is no way they are legitimate critics. Saying they are only gives them undeserved legitimacy and cover.
I am not sure what Kodos is getting at. Is he saying the Church is required to address every notional myth in Christendom and every point of pseudo-science in order to be considered legitimate?
I would note kodos, that the link you provided to the Church’s website doesn’t provide any citations either (other than the inconclusive scriptural citations).
So I’m just supposed to take the word of some anonymous web designer at the Church Office Building as authoritative?
Kodos, you have jumped to unwarranted conclusions. I see no denial that a universal flood was never taught. The statement made was FAIR “proposes” a limited flood. You are creating a strawman. I can’t think of any instance in which members are asked how old the earth is or what the flood was all about in order to be considered a member in good standing. We will always have those who have radically different theories on things that are peripheral to the gospel itself. The important thing is that we do not confuse peripheral issues with the gospel and that we do not claim exclusive revelation for what everyone else should believe.
I wonder….
Does Kodos think we should keep believing the same old things, even if the evidence doesn’t support it, and the Church doesn’t require it?
If Kodos does want that consistency, why? Is it that he wants it to be easy to dismiss us?
The Apostles and Prophets never claimed infallibility, except under strictly controlled circumstances; why must people insist that Prophetic infallibility be our doctrine?
As I elsewhere quoted John Maynard Keynes, “When the facts change, I change my opinions. What do you do, Sir?”
People should read what I actually wrote.
I never said the church should or shouldn’t change, should or should be more or less consistent, or anything. I never criticized the church at all. And I never even said what my personal view on the flood is.
I merely assert that a universal flood has, in fact, been a consistent teaching of the church (not a central teaching, but a teaching nonetheless). Therefore saying that people who think it is a “doctrine” of the church are “comical” and “just don’t have a clue” is grossly unfair to those people.
Truth is truth, and mormonism embraces all truth.
If the flood wasn’t universal then it isn’t a part of mormonism.
Now, doctrine is teaching. If the Church teaches something then it is doctrine; if the Church stops teaching something, then that thing is not doctrine.
Truth is independant of doctrine.
Truth is truth, and mormonism embraces all truth.
If the flood wasn’t universal then it isn’t a part of mormonism.
Now, doctrine is teaching. If the Church teaches something then it is doctrine; if the Church stops teaching something, then that thing is not doctrine.
Truth is independant of doctrine.
Now, correct practice is more important than correct thinking. When I am interviewed for a temple recommed interview no one asks me about the flood, Adam_God, Cain, Garden of Eden, the kinderhook plates or the semetic redaction/adoption of egyptian motifs.
I am asked what I do; do I have children i am not supporting, do I keep covenants etc.
Just so people don’t get caught up on the idea that, perhaps, critics’ comments aren’t quite “comical” enough and that some of them (not all of them, mind you) “don’t have a clue,” I just ran across this comment, by a critic, made within the past couple of days on a message board:
Now FAIR has accepted “anti-Mormon positions.” Fascinating.
-Allen
The term “anti-Mormon” is certainly poorly chosen. But the main point is that these people believe (sincerely I assume) that the church teaches that Adam and Eve were real people, there were no human beings before them, and that they were expelled from the Garden much less than 13,000 years ago.
You could make an argument about whether the church really teaches this, but why would you find the belief “comical” or without “a clue?”
I have read with interest for quite a few years what FAIR has written, as well as what those who do not share FAIR’s views. But regardless as to which one of these two ‘groups’ has the most credibility, I find it rather curious, or confusing, or whatever you want to call this discordant situation, that I am told (admonished) to listen to my ‘leaders,’ notwithstanding that I find out (from FAIR’s point of view, but not just them) that my GA ‘leaders’ sometimes taught inaccurate, limited (false) doctrine. Don’t you think this would be problematic for many members? I thought when I joined the church and listened to the prophet(s), that I was coming to the font of truth, but then I later discover (on my own) that this hasn’t necessarily always been true. So, am I now to be circumspect in my attitude when listening to conference talks or reading what a GA writes? If I am, this certainly isn’t the Mormonism that I grew up with during the early era of my fifty or so years since joining the church. The church is a lot different now IMHO. It is obviously attempting to distance itself from its past, well established esoteric doctrines and apparently attempting to become more ‘mainstream.’ Uh. So the Garden of Eden isn’t, or may not have been in Jackson County Missouri? So the flood may not have been universal? So we don’t “really teach that (anymore, or whatever)” as well as so many other things. Now I learn that Joseph Smith translated the BofM by placing a stone in a hat, when for my whole growing up years I was presented with pictures in Primary, Sunday School, and taught my children in FHE the same thing using the same visual aids showing Joseph pondering over the plates with a pen in hand ‘translating’ the plates. Uh. And now I also learn that JS had many wives practicing polygyny and polyandry and kept this practice, for the most part, secret. But the church knew otherwise all during those years while I was growing up, and on a mission, and in leadership positions, and allowed this misinformation (false doctrine, concept) to perpetuate regardless? Uh. And now I am still suppose to sit with rapped attention and hang on every word my spiritual GA leaders speak? “Oh no, you are still suppose to (or allowed to) think for yourself, it’s just that you can’t “say what you think” if there is anything that may be perceived as jeopardizing someone’s faith in the GA’s or the church — that is strictly TABOO! That’s demonstrating DISLOYALTY (treasonous)” Uh, so no dialogue permitted even in the face of perceived error, just put up (with) and shut up. Well, when my kids have countermanded me from time to time I have learned to listen to them, because I found out on occasions that I was indeed wrong. During those times (after I came to a better understanding) I never thought of my kids as ‘disloyal’ but rather I was grateful that they had a brain and used it, FOR MY GOOD as well as theirs. Too bad the church doesn’t display the same attitude towards its general membership. If they did, there would be far less so-called perceived anti’s, heretics, dissenters, and ‘ravening wolves’. Not to say there aren’t any, but many who have been labeled as such just clearly aren’t. I’m not. And God knows it even if a church leader chooses to think otherwise. Well, the church, again IMHO (and my wife’s and mother’s), lost a proven God-fearing, talented, and contributing member. Maybe in the next century, (if the world and the church should survive that long) things will be different — and for the better. Of course, I will be long gone…and forgotten.
So you were taught in Primary about Noah and the flood. I was also. The amazing thing is that what I learned from the flood story still is useful to me. I was taught to trust and obey the Lord. I was taught that Noah had to trust that the Lord would cause the flood even when the skies were clear. I learned the value of obedience and preparation. The funny thing is that none of those lessons requires the flood to be universal or across the whole earth.
Do you still believe popcorn grows on apricot trees, or did you learn that this is a reference to the beauty of the white apicot blossoms?
To E L Slack: This is not an attack on you, so I trust you won’t take it that way, but it’s comments like the one you just made that tarnish FAIR’s attempts to put the record right, etc. In other words, you are skirting the issue with very weak retorts. Teaching something like a universal flood, as do most mainstream Christian religions (unless they have changed, or are in the process of changing their views as well — I wouldn’t know about that) doesn’t even begin to compare with the issues that I mentioned. At one time I also led my kids to believe in Santa Clause, but do really think this compares to how I was led to believe (and consequently my kids) in how JS translated the BofM and about his polygyny and polyandry, etc? Do you really believe this is on the same level as popcorn popping on apricot trees?
You see, this is what happens: A member mentions something that is regarded as TABOO and all the old hardline TBM’s get defensive and start throwing stones called ‘anti’ or ‘heretic’ or ‘wolf’ or even insinuate ‘idiot’ etc. What’s really happening, INHO, is that cognitive dissonance sets in, fuses start blowing, and they start grasping at the straws of weak arguments and retorts, or in some unfortunate cases, hurl insults.
Why not just reply with something simple like, “I can offer some explanations that satisfy me, and that I can share with you, but in the end I really don’t have an absolute answer to these issues, which can certainly be regarded as troubling (and perhaps rightly so) to some people. I just have a belief that the JS was a true prophet and the LDS church is what it claims to be notwithstanding these controversial issues.”? And even preface this comment to me, and others like me, with something like, “I can UNDERSTAND where you are coming from.”
You catch a lot more flies (and semi-actives, like me) with honey than with vinegar and poorly reasoned retorts.
Very nice comment, Vikingz2000; your’s is a very good suggestion that we would all do well to remember.
I have experienced the “old hardline TBM” reaction to which you speak. In my experience, however, the reaction often varies according to how the “mention” of the taboo subject is brought up.
I’ve been in priesthood meetings where someone says “Did you know Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon by sticking his head in a hat? What’s up with that?” The reaction is entirely different than the one that occurs if someone says “I read the other day that one method Joseph used to translate the Book of Mormon involved placing a seer stone in a hat to block out light so he could see what God wanted him to see in the stone. Has anyone else heard anything about that?”
The differences in reaction have absolutely nothing to do with cognitive dissonance. Instead they are often a reaction to the perceived intent of the person broaching the taboo subject. If the person is perceived as somehow wanting to (1) criticize, (2) stir the pot, (3) tear down sacred beliefs, or (4) run down some bizarre tangent to the subject at hand then the reaction is often swift and not terribly friendly.
If, however, the person is perceived as simply (1) someone wanting to contribute to the discussion appropriate, (2) someone with a sincere question, or (3) someone that the hearers trust as a faithful believer, then the reaction will be entirely different.
Cognitive dissonance normally happens on an individual level in quiet times, not in the hubbub of an active group setting.
I’ve also taught classes, in a Church setting, where I brought up “taboo” subjects and discussed them with the class as a whole. I’ve sensed no trouble (and gotten in no trouble) for having done so.
Just my thoughts.
-Allen
To Allen: Thanks for the civil reply and compliment. I am aware, as is most everyone else, of the old adage that if you want to avoid a heated argument then don’t engage in a discussion about politics and religion.
This is too bad, though, especially when it comes to religion because for me political parties come and go (and let’s hope Bush’s party ‘goes’ — sorry, couldn’t resist getting that in there), but it seems that religion should be far more sacrosanct and secure (at least for me it is) and possesses totally different kinds of implications.
I understand what you are saying about ‘approaches’ in questioning, but all the same I think many members of the church need to ‘act’ (in a loving and understanding way) instead of ‘react’ when something is said, even in a perceived caustic or critical manner, in a way that does not infuriate, malign or ostracize the person making the comment. We are not all the same, and many LDSs seem to have a hard time understanding this. If you want to retain current members you don’t stand up in a priesthood meeting, point a shaking finger at another ‘brother’ and state. “You…you…are an emissary of Satan! You…you…just repulse me with your presence!” notwithstanding the person making these comments is a codger. That actually happened to me. I later found out that this same fellow almost didn’t get his temple recommend renewed because he started to argue with the stake president about something during his interview. I digress, but incidents like this are not uncommon in the LDS church in all its various forms, degrees of intensity, and actors.
About the cognitive dissonance, you may be of the opinion that it happens “in quiet times” and no doubt this is, in part, its locus, but I do feel that it is constantly just below the conscious surface of many members of the LDS church, especially since the advent of the Internet and its flow (flood, actually) of ‘new’ information about the church. I think a lot of LDSs are feeling angst even though it may not be totally obvious to them at all times. You mentioned teaching “taboo” subjects in certain church classes without any repercussions, but you don’t (and never will) know how those discussions really affected the members of that class later on when the content of these subjects begin composting in their minds over time in tandem with reinforcers from other sources. That’s why I am of the opinion that there may be more cog. dis. at the subconscious level than many people realize, or care to admit to, or consider as very plausible, if indeed, even likely.
I enjoy civil dialogue, but have been known (from time to time) to get my knickers in a knot. (big grin)
I understand that, as you say, “we are not all the same, and many LDSs seem to have a hard time understanding this.” I would only expand the “community” by saying that this is a human condition, not an LDS condition.
On the topic of cognitive dissonance, have you read the excellent presentation by Wendy Ulrich at a FAIR Conference a few years ago? She is a trained professional (and, yes, LDS), so her take on the issue was particularly interesting to me.
-Allen
Whatever happened to humble fasting and prayer to know the God given truth of a particular issue? I have looked at various LDS themed websites and found FAIR to answer and correct crtitical statements about the church as versus, say ‘Sunstone, that seems moer oriented toward raising crtiticism than defend against such. Where are the testimonies of these disafsected people? Don’t they understand James? Ask our Heavenly Father and the issue is settled. No rationalizing, just plain truth. Keep up the good work.
Sorry to be late to the party…
In case anyone cares, I can’t think of a single colleague [I’m on the faculty at BYU Geol. Sciences] who believes in a literal flood, creationism, or a young earth.
If it doesn’t bother us, why should anyone else care?
Steve,
You’re a damned heretic along with all of those at BYU.
[ /sarcasm ]
I wonder at the people who proclaim absolute biblical authority about the age of the earth. I thought that was peculiar to Evangelicals and their ilk. So far as I know, there is nothing that definitivly links the gospel to any one notion.
There is a real dichotomy in our arguments/positions on Prophets depending on the nature of the discussion. As missionaries/member (missionaries) share the gospel, our message usually boils down to “The heavens are open, God once again speaks to man and bestows his wisdom and authority”. When we are defending former positions of any of the sustained Prophets/Seers/Revelators in the Church our message is that, “well Prophets don’t know everything, and they are only human”. Sometimes in defense we retort by criticising their leaders or prominent intellectuals. Take for example the comment about John Maynard Keynes, the prominent 20th century Economist.
“When the facts change, I change my opinions. What do you do, Sir?”
This is a perfectly acceptable thing for Keynes to say, given that his authority comes from human intelectualism and science. He does not claim divine knowledge, neither do many spiritual leaders from other faiths, at least not in the same way Mormons do. We claim that Prophets speak as ambassadors of the Savior and possess special Priesthood keys which make them authorities of God to act/speak in that capacity. The risk of making these types of claims under these premises is that their words are rightly subject to scrutiny. The logical question is, if a Prophet was wrong about the universal flood, for example and regardless of whether the Church accepts that in 2008, are they ever right about anything. So, 1) issues like the universal flood, location of the Garden of Eden, Adam-God, etc. are vastly important. 2) The price we pay for making the claims we do, is that we are accountable for everything we do.
I fully believe the heavens are opened and that God speaks to man.
But, I don’t believe in the “all revelation all of the time” model. I believe that God gives us revelation when we ask for it, when we are able to understand it, and when he feels it will help us.
So, the prophets and church leaders give us many things by direct revelation and by inspiration, and then give us other things by scriptural understanding–which is probably used as good council but may not be the original meaning of the scripture, and finally give us counsel based on their best understanding.
Scott:
I agree entirely with your statement. But the conflict is that the historical record is full of examples where Prophets have authoritatively declared things which modern leaders disagree with. Unless we know which statements are opinion and which are revelations at the time of pronouncement, the “Prophets are also human” retort sounds like a convenient excuse for evidence which challenges their Prophetic call.
Do you think anyone could be human enough to fix the website below?
http://www.lds.org/gospellibrary/pioneer/19_Ash_Hollow.html
On September 3, 1855 a massacre occurred, through no fault of the LDS, and no LDS had been involved. The military leader who did it was an enemy of Utah. Why does the LDS website still call it a “significant victory?”
The LGT approach to location certainly makes it easy to ignore yesterday’s events on the overland trail.
Instead of worrying about two Cumorahs, look at yesterday and make things right. Or don’t the Sioux matter? Is it because they opposed human sacrifice? They are quite different than those who practiced the blood rituals of Meso America.