Podcast: Download (22.3MB)
Subscribe: RSS
Marcus H. Martins was the first Black man to serve a full-time mission after the revelation that extended the priesthood to worthy men with Black African ancestry in 1978. He was also among the first to be ordained a high priest in 1981 and quite possibly–at least outside of Africa–may have been among the first to be ordained a bishop in 1987. Since 1994, he has been the first Black man to work as a religion professor in the Church’s universities: Brigham Young University; then Rick’s College; BYU-Idaho and BYU-Hawaii. In this 2006 FAIR Conference address, he speaks of the burden carried by Latter-day Saints with Black African ancestry, and how he has been able to reconcile the pain he has experienced with his faith in the Church.
Brother Martins is the author of the book Setting the Record Straight – Blacks and the Mormon Priesthood, which can be purchased at the FAIR Bookstore.
The full text of this address can be found at FAIR LDS.
This was a great episode! I just wanted to let you know how grateful I am for the new podcasts that you guys are putting out there. I have wanted a fair podcast for so long. I hope you have plans of keeping it going for a long time. I did recently listen to a podcast about this topic and I felt it was very powerful, but it is from a slightly different perspective. I was curious to see what your thoughts would be on this podcast. http://mormonstories.org/?p=1639 Thanks
Blair,
I just read Marcus Martins’s FAIR Conference address. Thanks for posting the transcript. I have several questions with a few comments tucked in.
Q1. Was it a coincidence that you posted this address on the same day John Dehlin posted Dustin Jones interview on Mormon Stories podcast? They deal with the same topic.
Q2. Early in his address Martins states:
“Since its beginnings in the 1830s the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has also been affected by the issue of race. The Church is managed largely by a lay clergy–in many cases around the world a clergy composed of relatively recent converts–because of that the Church of Jesus Christ is not entirely immune to the predicaments found in the societies in which the members of the Church live.
It sounds like Martins is shifting responsibility onto the “rank-and-file,” who didn’t know better. Do you think it is accurate to discount the role of the highest LDS leaders in this policy? Does this excuse the Lord’s anointed?
Q3. Later Martins says
“But just like the Mountain Meadows massacre and other unfortunate episodes, the ban may be remembered as an undeniable fact in history–but never as a significant factor to the present.”
Do you agree with that last part of this statement? It seems to contradict the fact that Martins gets all these e-mails and racks up so many frequent flier miles addressing this issue. That seems inconsistent to me. To the contrary, the Black issue seems quite significant to many. It still troubles a lot of people, especially African Americans.
Q4. Martin’s most unambiguous point, at least to me, was when he said that prior to 1978 there were “few significant privileges of membership that [he] could not enjoy. He goes on to state what those few privileges he could not enjoy. He said:
“I simply could not officiate in priesthood ordinances like my peers, nor enter a temple and receive my own endowment, nor be sealed to my parents, but other than that all other privileges of membership were available to me.”
This strikes me as an astounding discounting of the most sacred ordinances of the restored Gospel. Would you agree? Imagine the LDS Church with these ordinances taken away by the Lord. Martins mentions this. He says in this regard “It’s his church he can do whatever he wants, as far as I am concerned.”
Q6. Marcus makes a series of statements that left me confused. First he says:
“… people who contact me [think] that I know something about it–which I don’t.”
Then:
“I’ve got a lot of frequent flyer mileage traveling around the country and speaking on the priesthood ban and race relations.”
Next:
“As a researcher I may have read everything official or semi-official statement available to the public about the priesthood ban.”
And then:
“I decided a number of years ago to leave these matters to the judgment of Him who knows all things.”
My question has two parts. First, his extensive reading and frequent speaking on the subject seem to contradict his admitted lack of expertise and his claim to have left these matters behind him. How would you harmonize these points?
Second, who pays for Martins’s travel for all these speaking engagements? Is it the Church?
Q5. Martins sums up his main argument with the following statements:
“I have used my typology to categorize the ban as a mortal law, or in other words, a rule or regulation established as an educated response to the social environment in which the Church existed in the late 19th and most of the 20th century. This would have been what those Church leaders of 150-or-so years ago felt was the best approach at the time, and they used the keys of the priesthood in their possession to enforce it.”
First, what do you think he means by “educated response to the social environment?” Could this mean that Brigham Young’s unconscious culture-induced bigotry is what led him to use his knowledge of the LDS doctrine and scriptures (e.g. Abraham 1) to invent the priesthood ban without confirmation from God? I would think that Brigham Young would have sought confirmation from the Lord as Prophet, Seer, and Revelator to confirm any “mortal law” of such import before he enacted it.
Q6. I was particularly struck by the second sentence in the above quotation regarding Church leaders “[using] the keys of the priesthood … to enforce it.” This strikes me as extremely problematical, especially in light of Martins’s assertion that the Lord “remained silent about the issue” for 150 years.
This combination of priesthood enforcement and the Lord’s silence presents a dilemma for me. Did this use of priesthood power represent unrighteous dominion? Was it only the Lord’s silence that made it not unrighteous? What are we to make of all this? Was the ban righteous after all? Were the justifications accurate or not?
Q7. Martins concludes from this silence (generally), along with “the lack of information on the origins of the priesthood ban” that the “Lord allowed the ban to remain in his Church in order to fulfill his inscrutable purposes whatever they are.”
How do you feel about the “inscrutable purposes” argument? I have in mind the broad scope of the apologetic program, and of late, Kevin Christiansen’s meta-argument about paradigms. “Divine inscrutability” seems a powerful paradigm that the faithful seem ready and willing to mix with reason/evidence anchored paradigms. Indeed, Martins does it here with his Typology of Law theory. I alluded to this in my comment to Christiansen – there I called it a “miracle card.” Christiansen claims he does not to use it. But of course that requires carefully choosing or circumscribing the event to which one is applying a theory. For instance, between the Jaredites living perfectly mundane existences in the Old and New worlds, a terrific set of miracles helped them get across the ocean.
So where and when does one turn to this “argument from inscrutable purposes” as Martins so clearly does here? He presents a very speculative “typology of law” argument with a pre-emptive and undermining admission of inscrutability.
I will be honest here. This was a poor choice of addresses to post. With all due respect, what were you thinking?
JT,
Since I was the one who chose to post this talk, I will respond to your questions. (Of course, Blair may choose to respond as well.) I will offer my response to each of your questions in order, however, note that you had two questions labeled Q6.
A1: My posting of this address at the same time as the Dustin Jones interview was merely a coincidence. I have not listened to the Dustin Jones interview.
A2: I think the only sense in which Brother Martins is “shifting responsibility” is that he is shifting responsibility onto us mortals and saying that we should not blame God for our weaknesses. I think this is intended to be taken in the same spirit as the statement of Moroni with respect to the Book of Mormon: “if there are faults they are the mistakes of men.” Of course, we should be careful about being too quick to assume, based upon our limited knowledge and perspective, that we have found faults or mistakes that exist in scripture or in the administration of God’s church.
A3: I don’t think he is denying that it is a significant factor to many at this time. I think he is perhaps hopeful that in the future it will be seen simply as a difficult episode in our past, but not as a significant factor to people in the modern Church. I think he recognizes that the Church is an organic institution and, like each of us as individuals, experiences a process of growth and change.
A4: Clearly, he saw great value in being a member of the Church prior to 1978. I see his attitude as an example of tremendous faith and one from which we can all benefit. There are various things about the past and present practices of this Church that we may all find troubling and do not understand at this time. But ultimately, I believe the Lord is at the head. There might be things I would change about the Church if I were in charge. But I am inspired by those who say, “Not my will, but thine, be done.”
A5 (to the first Q6): I think he is making the point that despite all the studying we might do on this issue, there are questions that remain unanswered. Second, I don’t know who pays for his travel. I would be glad to know that the Church, or one of its universities reimburses him for his travel expenses and would be inspired to learn that he does it at his own expense.
A5: This is the heart of the issue isn’t it? Why would a prophet of God impose the ban? I think Brother Martins is trying to make sense of the ban in a way that is faithful to the Church and respectful of its leaders. He is proposing, as a hypothesis, that priesthood leaders believed that, at that particular time in history, the priesthood ban was necessary. He is further proposing, as a hypothesis, that God chose not to reveal until 1978 that the ban should be removed. I don’t know how administration of Church policy works at the highest levels, but I do not assume that God appears to the prophet to dictate or even to ratify each decision. The hypothesis proposed by Brother Martins seems to assume that the prophet is allowed to use his experience, intelligence and agency in the exercise of priesthood keys. While he is clear that he is only proposing a hypothesis regarding the priesthood ban, he also makes the point that, ultimately, all of the blessings of the gospel are now available to all people who have ever lived upon the earth.
A6 (to the second Q6): Aside from what I’ve said in response to the preceding question, all I can say is that these are good questions that, so far as I can tell, remain unanswered.
A7: The reason I chose to post this speech is that it is a faithful and thoughtful approach to one of the most difficult issues in Church history by a person who has been deeply affected by the issue. While questions regarding the inscrutable purposes of God remain, this is a good example of how a black member of the Church has been able to maintain his faith in the face of these troubling issues. At some point, we all encounter issues that we cannot resolve with human reasoning. When we reach that point, we must decide whether we will nevertheless remain faithful. (Of course, if we were able to satisfy the demands of human reasoning on every issue, would there still be a place for faith?)
This life is, in part, a test and in part a place where we gain experience and grow. To these ends, all of us experience different things. I was impressed by the attitude taken by Brother Martins where he stated that “the ban afforded me and other Black Latter-day Saints a still ongoing opportunity to display the depth of our commitment to the Lord and his kingdom in a specific way that our fellow Latter-day Saints of other races will never be able to experience.” However, I think this statement may come across as a little too exclusive. The priesthood ban has served as a trial of faith for all members of the Church. Of course, members such as Brother Martins have been tested and endured an experience far different from the one that members such as I have experienced. And I find great inspiration in the example of those such as Brother Martins and hope that others, regardless of race, will too.
Steve,
I appreciate you’re thoughtful answers and opinions. I hope to make just a few brief follow-up comments and questions shortly. Your responses ideas deserve thoughtful consideration and right now I’ve got to get back to work.
Thanks,
JT
JT, as Steve pointed out, I don’t select the material included in Best of FAIR podcasts, etc. My contributions to the podcast are now called “FAIR Conversations,” only one aspect of the “Mormon FAIR-Cast.” My next episode features John Sanders:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_E._Sanders
Was good to hear about the Ban from the perspective of one that was affected by it. Brother Martins presented the topic fairly well I think, I enjoyed listening to it.
Are most FAIR Conference talks available online? In audio I mean? I’ve only seen a few but admittedly I haven’t had the chance to look too hard.
Jared,
I’m glad you enjoyed it.
The text of most of the past FAIR Conference talks can be found here: http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/
The audio versions are available for purchase here: http://bookstore.fairlds.org/category.php?id_category=40
Oh, and you can register for this year’s FAIR Conference here: http://bookstore.fairlds.org/category.php?id_category=77
Steve,
I followed the link you provided Jared to the FAIR Conference talks and found
Armand L. Mauss’s address: The LDS Church and the Race Issue: A Study in Misplaced Apologetics.
As you may know Mauss began with a quotation from Bruce R. McConkie:
“Forget everything I have said, or what…Brigham Young…or whomsoever has said…that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.”
My question has three parts, the latter contingent on the former.
Q1. Do you think we can take McConkie’s injunction as authoritative? Should we only tentatively consider this and be ready to drop it if another prophet, seer, and revelator (apostle or President of the Church) tells us something with either the explicit or implicit assurance that the Lord will never permit the living prophet to lead the Church astray?
Q2. Do you think the denial of the priesthood to men of African descent was on the same footing as the current priesthood denial for women (vis-a-vis not an eternal explicitly revealed principle, or, as Martins said “never part of the everlasting gospel.”)? A similar question could be asked about gay-marriage.
Q3. If it turns out that in 50 years the priesthood is extended to all worthy human beings, will it be because the Lord changed his policy? Or, because the church was “affected by the issue of” sexism and the Lord was waiting for the leadership to ask because He doesn’t inspire unless man inquires?
A final comment and question:
When Spencer Kimball said, “the living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet” I immediately think, well every living prophet ends up as a dead prophet, so I better look elsewhere for moral guidance regarding issues of social justice, and perhaps others, such as environmental stewardship, or animal rights. I certainly would have been right to do so when all of those Apostles were making racist statements, encouraging segregation, and rallying church members and government officials to fight against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Or is it simply best for a member to just be obedient to the current Prophet and if things evolve to show he was wrong that member bears no responsibility? As I say this I grapple with all of the 14 points of following the prophet that I alluded to above.
The evolution LDS apologetics surrounding the race issue (and pointing by inference to others) just seems to me like a can of worms that will not close. It seems to me that this what happens when an institution claims to be the one true church with the one true authority on earth. It cannot deal gracefully with mistakes and the harm those perpetrate. That is properly take responsibility. The responsibility cannot be put on God who, if cornered is given the inscrutability pass. And it cannot be placed on the leadership, who, if cornered, suddenly enjoy the protection of diminished expectations. They unwitting slaves of their culture’s lack of light and intelligence – as if the Holy Ghost can inspire the choice of the new primary teacher or reveal that a person is of the Tribe of Ephraim, but not steer him or her toward taking a stand on an issue that causes deep suffering for millions.
Can you understand the frustration people may feel when they confront this modus operandi?
These are great questions and yes, I can understand the frustration people feel in confronting the difficulties that arise when confronting these issues. However, it seems unlikely that these feelings of frustration are unique to our times. I wonder if similar frustration was felt by Nephi as he was commanded to kill Laban, or Abraham when commanded to kill Isaac, or by Adam and Eve when commanded to multiply and replenish, but not to partake of the fruit. Which statement was binding and authoritative?
As I read the words of Christ, I am struck by how often his statements take the form of a paradox: he who seeks to save his life will lose it; it is more blessed to give than to receive; the first shall be last and the last shall be first. The tension and frustration that can be created as we encounter contradictory statements made by prophets, or even by God, have the effect of driving some away as they throw up their hands in frustration and exclaim: “It makes no sense.” Others are brought closer to God as they strive for greater understanding, faithfully rely upon the spirit, and patiently wait for further light and knowledge. Perhaps there is a point to the paradox. Perhaps these difficulties you have identified are part of our mortal test and part of the mechanism we must encounter in order to experience growth in this life. They key, I believe, is reliance on the spirit. In my experience with these types of issues, the spirit has sometimes opened my eyes to a different way to understand things. It has given me knowledge. Other times, the spirit has simply comforted me with confidence that this is the Church of Jesus Christ, even when I cannot comprehend the actions of some of its members or leaders.
I think it is helpful to remember that this life is a trial and a test. That test comes not only from the acts of selfish and evil intentioned individuals, but also from our encounters with well-meaning Church leaders and from God Himself. As we encounter confusing and difficult statements from Church leaders, and we see those around us leave the Church, rather than leave as well, will we as Peter say “Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.” As we encounter the trials of this life, will we, as Job, exclaim, “Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him.”
There are a couple of other sources you may find helpful. The first is an article by Mike Ash that I will be posting as a future episode of the FAIR Issues podcast. The text can be found here: http://www.mormontimes.com/article/4534/Challenging-issues-and-keeping-the-faith-Part-10
The second is a talk by Elder Simmons from the 2004 General Conference, and can be found here: http://lds.org/general-conference/2004/04/but-if-not?lang=eng&query=still+will+trust+him.
I am sorry that I cannot directly answer each of your questions. But perhaps I should not be. Perhaps, it is best that for now, you continue to struggle. I hope that as you do so, you will be drawn closer to the Lord as you strive for greater understanding, faithfully rely upon the spirit, and patiently wait for further light and knowledge.
For purchase…dang I was afraid of that. Well, the text versions will help me decide which one’s to buy methinks.
A couple people invited to the FAIR Conference, but the airfare/distance is way too much to justify it. Someday though…
Steve,
Thanks again.
As another interim response to your answers to my first posted questions, I am moved to answer your latest response first.
First, with regard to,
“These are great questions and yes, I can understand the frustration people feel in confronting the difficulties that arise when confronting these issues.”
I’ll answer that I appreciate your understanding.
Second, with regard to,
“However, it seems unlikely that these feelings of frustration are unique to our times. I wonder if similar frustration was felt by Nephi as he was commanded to kill Laban, or Abraham when commanded to kill Isaac, or by Adam and Eve when commanded to multiply and replenish, but not to partake of the fruit. Which statement was binding and authoritative?”
I have a bit more to say.
The implicit reasoning here seems to be that because God gave apparently immoral and contradictory commandments in the past and we should expect them to continue and that the correct response is to obey them in spite of our moral instincts, or His usual requirements.
When I read these examples two others popped into my head. The first is the case of the Israelite soldiers that Moses told to go back and “… kill every male [Midianite] among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. (Numbers 31:17&18).
The second was Joseph Smith’s claim that it took an angel threatening his destruction with a drawn sword for him accept plural marriage. Of course, this incident aligns with the Lord promising Emma’s destruction as Joseph revealed in D&C 132.
Next, with regard to,
“As I read the words of Christ, I am struck by how often his statements take the form of a paradox: he who seeks to save his life will lose it; it is more blessed to give than to receive; the first shall be last and the last shall be first. The tension and frustration that can be created as we encounter contradictory statements made by prophets, or even by God, have the effect of driving some away as they throw up their hands in frustration and exclaim: “It makes no sense.”
Let me respond with the following.
I see no paradoxes here. These simply employ a rhetorical device that helps a person gain a new perspective. In each case there is an implicit shift in meaning of the operative word and this is pretty easy to infer. The choice they force on a person is also implicit. Indeed, the power (psychologically speaking) of this rhetoric lies in this implicitness. So these are not paradoxes because they are easy to understand. One would have to be a dunce not to make immediate sense of them in the context they are provided.
Next, let’s quickly go back through each of these “paradoxes” you and I have come up with. To set the stage let me assert that paradox is a premature characterization based on an unnecessary adherence to a premise – the most obvious being that the referents are factual.
A classic scientific case of a false paradox was the invariance of the speed and light being a wave. This appeared like a paradox only as long as scientists clung to the dogma that all waves needed a material medium (the luminiferous ether) to travel through. Einstein resolved the paradox with his special theory of relativity. His genius was that he was not a slave to the ether dogma. The hallmark of science is that its practitioners never collectively settle for paradoxes. Someone always is ready to interpret a paradox as a solvable puzzle that once solved will reveal a more accurate model of reality – the next best, or only, thing to absolute truth.
Given this, I’ll resolve every one of these paradoxes – not in ways that prove themselves – but in a ways that can be judged on their merits. For brevity sake, I will not cite all of the supporting evidence for these “theories.” The point is merely about how easily paradoxes can be resolved with the right premises – which while cannot be proven true, enjoy various degrees of plausibility. If you can’t wade through this I offer right afterwards my response to your comment about life as a trial and test. That is a central principle of Mormonism and is perhaps the most important point to address.
1. Adam & Eve: These are purely mythological persons and the creation stories in Genesis (which contradict each other) are ancient oral traditions that cannot be trusted as accurate or coherent. Adam & Eve’s status as the first created humans is contrary to extremely robust science. Anything having to do with the Adam and Eve story can remain paradoxical if one abides the LDS Church’s fundamentalist leanings which it has been able to mitigate only by taking no official position on evolution – which in my mind is a bit of a cop out.
2. Abraham: Perhaps he has a greater chance of being an historical figure, but the chance of any factual details of his life surviving is unlikely. It is far more plausible that this story is mythical and merely served a tribal culture seeking divine justification for such in-group serving behavior as …
3. Midianite genocide: Even if this event were historical it would be a horrible scripture to “liken unto ourselves.” Abiding this as an authentic interaction between God and man is perverse. If choosing to accept this event as portraying the character of God (rather than a brutal tribal mentality) was part of His test, I would hope that the right answer would be to repudiate it. If Moses pulled this on his own that should disqualify him as a prophet. Are you ready to defend genocide? Must this be placed on the “inscrutable” pile?
3. Nephi beheading Laban: I see no paradox here. While Nephi expresses a moment of cognitive dissonance (verse 10), he immediately takes the reader through a perfectly sound utilitarian rationalization partially delivered by the “Spirit” and supplemented by his own rationale (verses 11 – 17). I take comfort in the likelihood that Joseph Smith made up this story. I think it tells us more about his construal of God than anything else. It would serve the purpose of preparing his faithful followers to do anything God commands them through him. This sort of thing has a very ugly track record – think 9/11.
4. Joseph’s and Emma’s threatened destruction: This is clearly a case where abandoning a false premise resolves the paradox. If one wants to live with the cognitive dissonance of holding to the construal of God portrayed by Joseph Smith’s sword wielding angel and his D&C 132 revelation, they can. I just hope they don’t encounter situations in which they “rely on the spirit” to become instruments of God’s destruction (like Jeffrey Don Lundgren and the Lafferty brothers). The epistemological problem of relying on the spirit to decide what is “binding and authoritative” is obvious – unless one is caught in a exclusivist mindset.
In my mind it more conscionable to resolve this paradox by rejecting the belief that Joseph was telling the truth. It is also more plausible to believe that was a man justifying his infidelity by taking advantage of people who believed he was a prophet.
Now, with regard to you writing
“Perhaps these difficulties you have identified are part of our mortal test and part of the mechanism we must encounter in order to experience growth in this life. They key, I believe, is reliance on the spirit. In my experience with these types of issues, the spirit has sometimes opened my eyes to a different way to understand things. It has given me knowledge. Other times, the spirit has simply comforted me with confidence that this is the Church of Jesus Christ, even when I cannot comprehend the actions of some of its members or leaders.”
I’ll try to finish up with some more heartfelt and personal responses.
I respect your position. And if you can specifically share your “different way(s) to understand things” with regard to these “paradoxes,” I would be truly interested. I would also be interested in your sharing specific examples of knowledge the spirit has given you other than simple feelings of comfort and confidence.
With regard to comfort and confidence, I tried hard to gain that for several years – very hard. I couldn’t. In the aftermath I learned of all kinds of psychological reasons how a person might, in the face of paradox-inducing cognitive dissonance, and pulled by a mind inexorably indoctrinated and tied to social network built on a quasi-ethnic/kinship cultural tradition that promises the only means of exaltation, would discern a comforting spirit. When the psychic cost of giving up a premise is too great to resolve the paradox, the mind will likely produce a comforting spirit. Evidently, I never experienced this level psychic cost. I was a teenage convert among a family of converts.
I currently believe that the only life tests are the large and small choices that make a difference in the flourishing of ones own mortal life and the lives of others. This is sufficient. I have little concern about the next life. Perhaps giving up on the afterlife and focusing on the good in this one is a valid interpretation of Jesus’ injunction. The commandments tied to legalistic ordinances that focus on celestial entrance tokens are thinly masked in-group or institution serving devices. This is why this type of commandment so often leads to division and strife.
That being said, if this life is some cosmic Mormon test, then I’ve already taken it in the sense that I resigned my membership and so also those qualifying ordinances. Therefore, the nature of my “struggle” that you refer to is not of the kind you may have been referring to. My leaving the Church was a moral choice that felt right, and still feels right. My basic position is that it is moral not to hold on to implausible claims when they support a problematical construal of God. By this I don’t just mean a “pious fraud” god who would test people with such a stream of fantastic beliefs as the Mormon Church does, but the god of D&C 132, and Numbers 31, 3 Nephi 9&10, Abraham 1, and of all those institutional bits that cling to these, no matter how many have been abraded by the expediencies of the Church’s growth and survival.
If God exists, perhaps He will forgive my stitching together models of goodness from “this-worldly” expressions rather than those that carry with them implausible Mormon assertions that too often painted me in a corner that required I either keep moving the line of what constitutes disqualifying behavior for its deceased authorities, or settle for the “inscrutability of God” argument to handle the other nasty bits.
So why do I listen and comment here? For one thing, I honestly want to hear what the brightest thinkers in the Mormon Church have to say and have my honest questions addressed. I also want your listeners to see another perspective. Indeed, I have been surprised that the few other posts are little more than short expressions of affirmation. I am even more surprised that there are no others from “outside the fold” that engage. Perhaps it is true that most people just want to hang out with those who confirm their biases.
I also listen and respond because I continue to live among faithful members – including my immediate and extended family. I choose to abide their faith without confrontation despite my current life stance. I understand that their faith is built on relationships and has little to do with the particulars of Mormon theology or history. Their sense of God seems mainly enlivened through these relationships. They find being part of a community that offers support and opportunities for service spiritually edifying. They also need that community as much if not more than it needs them. They shy away from all controversial matters to which they attach an almost taboo status. These are things I respect and do not have the heart to tamper with.
I also remain interested in understanding better these matters of faith in the particular context of this extraordinary “latter-day” institution to which I devoted a significant portion of my life as an earnest follower. I recognize that I made my choice to on the basis of incomplete knowledge, even though it was sufficient for me to act on my conscience and no longer remain “neither hot nor cold.” It has also been worthwhile to polish (and potentially grind away) my positions against faithful views rather than simply seek confirmation.
Since I can’t/won’t run away from the Mormon Church, I might as well keep studying it and probing it. The FAIR blog seems as appropriate forum since that is consistent with its purpose and nobody is being forced to follow it.
Believe it or not, I am not dogmatic. Sometimes in the process working toward understanding I can assume a stronger or more fixed position than I truly hold – hoping as much for corrective responses as to win a point, which is a largely futile goal.
Finally, I understand that as long as I remain engaged in thoughtful evaluation of Mormonism, and religion in general, there is a chance that I might suddenly “see the light.” If I remain honest, self-critical, and open, God may reward me with a revelation that puts me on a His path. Perhaps that’s not how He operates – but it seems possible. Indeed, I see myself as near the center of a spectrum that puts the pre-road-to-Damascus Paul on one end and Moroni’s model of pre-emptive faith on the other. I don’t expect to return to Mormonism at this point, but I don’t feel I should be disqualified. I’m only human.
I’ll check out Mike Ash’s Part 10 and Elder Simmons’s piece – and perhaps get back to those first answers you wrote. But for now I need to take a break – this was more writing than I anticipated. Thanks in for your time and patience
Cheers
JT
It appears that we have a fundamental disagreement on some key premises. I will acknowledge that it can be difficult to know which of the stories in the Bible have been handed down to us accurately. Nevertheless, I believe that Adam, Eve and Abraham were real people and that they really were given competing commandments by God.
Furthermore, I’m not sure what your reference point for morality is. The basis for calling something “good” seems to be limited to a determination, based on human reasoning, of whatever makes “a difference in the flourishing of one’s own mortal life and the lives of others.” This guiding principle seems to assume that mortal life is the end of our existence and you further seem to assume that we have the capacity to determine in every instance what will cause us to flourish in this life. I do not believe that this life is the end of our existence, and I do not share your confidence in man’s ability to determine the most likely way to flourish in this life. Rather, my reference point for morality is God. I believe God’s work and glory is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of his children and that his commands are meant to help effectuate this grand design. He has created us to the end that we might have joy. However, I do not believe that it is intended that a fullness of joy will be experienced in this life. Nor do I think that all will experience the same degree of joy in the life to come. I do think that we will each be rewarded according to our desires, so in that sense, we will all be as happy in the long run as we deserve (i.e., desire).
With respect to the paradoxical situations I referenced, you have not really confronted the issues presented except to deny that the scenarios I raised actually occurred. I suppose if you don’t think any of these situations occurred anciently, they would not be helpful in explaining God’s actions in present times.
With respect to Christ’s sayings, I think you are too quick to assume that those who were there would have immediately understood Him. There are numerous examples of times when those present were not able to understand what He was saying. You and I have the benefit of the filter of the gospel writers as well as centuries of commentary and modern-day revelation to help understand his words. Along these lines, you are correct to point out that many of those things that I identified as paradoxes can be resolved through greater understanding of the meaning of the words that are being used and their shifting definitions. However, this simply supports my point that apparent difficulties with modern Church history and doctrine will be resolved as more is revealed. At this point, it seems that it serves God’s purposes that we continue to faithfully struggle with these issues.
On a different note, I would be surprised to learn that the testimony of each of your family members is based solely on relationships with other Church members. My guess is that these types of relationships help strengthen their commitment to the Church, but that those with firm commitment to the Church base that commitment on a relationship with God manifested to them through the Holy Spirit. When one has this type of relationship, “the particulars of Mormon theology or history” do not seem as important as nurturing a personal relationship with God. Most people find that one of the best ways to nurture that relationship is through service to others. An outsider may mistakenly think that the person providing service simply enjoys the sense of community that Church activity provides. An outsider may think that volunteering at the local homeless shelter would provide the same spiritual edification, without the commitments imposed by organized religion. However, one who has made covenants with God, participated in saving ordinances, and received the Holy Ghost as a constant companion is motivated by far more than the payoff that comes through community involvement and service. The Holy Ghost provides comfort, enlightenment, and a sense of redemption that cannot be attained through mere socializing or even through mere Christian service. The Holy Ghost changes our hearts so that we have no disposition to do evil, but to do good continually. Once we have felt this change of heart, we hope to keep it with us and feel a great loss when its influence is diminished or leaves. Some members may avoid controversial matters for fear that troubling issues may harm their relationship with God. Some do in fact appear to have given up on their relationship with God over such issues. For others, myself included, it is a strong relationship with God that has sustained us as we have confronted controversial matters. With patience and study, I have sometimes been able to resolve controversial issues in my mind. At other times, I have simply pressed forward with faith, in spite of controversy, relying upon the knowledge that comes from the Holy Spirit that this is God’s Church.
As you continue in what you have termed a “thoughtful evaluation of Mormonism,” I think it is unlikely that you will suddenly become converted. From what I can tell, the experiences of Paul and Alma the Younger are unusual in the extreme. More often, a conversion experience comes to one who already has a desire to do God’s will, whatever it may be. You seem more interested in finding a god that will do your will; one that will conform to your expectations of right conduct. Faith in God and in His Church usually begins with a desire to believe. As this desire is nourished and cultivated, the seed of faith can grow into a tree that bears good fruit. This does not seem to be the process in which you are engaged. Until it is, I am afraid that your study of Mormonism will be one in which you are ever learning, but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.
Nevertheless, if you are genuinely interested in exploring a faithful approach to these issues, I think you might be interested in listening to and/or reading each of Mike Ash’s articles. Also, a book I recently read that you might find interesting is “What’s So Great About Christianity” by Dinesh D’Souza. And, of course, there is a small volume called the Book of Mormon . . . .
Steve,
I’ll respond to each of your statements. I put them are in quotes – mine follow.
“It appears that we have a fundamental disagreement on some key premises.”
Yes, I agree.
“I will acknowledge that it can be difficult to know which of the stories in the Bible have been handed down to us accurately. Nevertheless, I believe that Adam, Eve and Abraham were real people and that they really were given competing commandments by God.”
This is a good example of the above. But to be accurate, I am agnostic – but so doubtful that it does not inform my judgments. This is the first time I have heard of anyone appealing to it in matters of faith.
“With respect to the paradoxical situations I referenced, you have not really confronted the issues presented except to deny that the scenarios I raised actually occurred….”
You did not read what I wrote very carefully. Except for the Adam and Eve bit, none of my resolutions depend on the referent being fictional. For the Adam and Eve commandments I am happy to resolve this saying that they could have been chronologically reordered after millennia of repeating and copying.
But more importantly, I don’t see the point of bringing this up. It is inconsistent with, “I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them.” (1 Nephi 3:7). Or, maybe this just deepens the paradox.
“Furthermore, I’m not sure what your reference point for morality is. … human reasoning… This … assume[s] that mortal life is the end of our existence and … that we have the capacity to determine in every instance what will cause us to flourish in this life.”
First, yes, I don’t assume that there is afterlife. I don’t assume there isn’t one. I have no basis for knowing either way and so it I am not motivated by either ambitions or fears about this to motivate my choices.
Second, I didn’t say that humans are able to determine the best course of moral action in EVERY instance. However, I do believe that by drawing on reason and secular knowledge humanity can improve on their moral intuitions and improve the pro-social structures provided by societies. The examples are too numerous to mention. But this does not mean there are no moral dilemmas or mistakes based on limited light and truth. But religions suffer from the same. Civil rights for gay couples is one recent example.
“… my reference point for morality is God.”
Well, this is the major problem I address. It is my provisional, yet confident, claim that the Mormon construal of God serves as a poor point of moral reference. This is the god of D&C 132, and Numbers 31, 3 Nephi 9&10, and Abraham 1 that I mentioned. This is not to take away all the good bits – but these problems cling tenaciously to the faith – they are canonized. I understand the dilemma the Church faces in repudiating these things, but I do not sympathize with their approach and this all points the plausibility of it being a man-created institution.
“With respect to Christ’s sayings, I think you are too quick to assume that those who were there would have immediately understood Him.”
This is not a big deal. The important question is what restored-Gospel paradox can we liken this to? Are there contemporary examples of people not linguistically “getting” something? I am wary of making too much of loose analogies in guiding my judgments.
Our differences here may arise form our conceptions of paradox. When I think of Christian paradox I first think of the Trinity. This has been used to guide believers to a point from which they suddenly surrender their reason to achieve a state of spiritual transcendence that connects them to the ineffable nature of God. Have you read Karen Armstrong? Other traditional paradoxes are the problem of evil and the Euthyphro dilemma. Interestingly, Mormon theology has resolutions for all these. Indeed, the Mormon Church makes much of how its doctrine clears up these apostate theological puzzles. So it seems ironic that you’ve moved toward quasi-moral paradoxes in the service of your faith – though I can speculate as to why.
“However, this simply supports my point that apparent difficulties with modern Church history and doctrine will be resolved as more is revealed. At this point, it seems that it serves God’s purposes that we continue to faithfully struggle with these issues.”
To continue with what I just said, it seems to me that these “paradoxes” provide their own resolutions. In every case – Isaac’s sacrifice, Midianite genocide, Laban’s beheading, and Joseph and Emma threatened destruction – the message is clear: Obeying God is the ultimate right. More recently, LDS leaders have added: “Forget every this that’s been said…” and “Let’s put it behind us.” So, I am not sure what you mean by continuing to “faithfully struggle.” What’s left to struggle with?
“On a different note, I would be surprised to learn that the testimony of each of your family members is based solely on relationships with other Church members. My guess is …. “
First, I did not say “solely.” Again, re-read what I wrote if you are so inclined.
Second, you don’t know my family. For you to project this ideal Mormon stereotype is unwarranted. I do know them. I’ve lived with them and practiced this faith tradition with them for decades. I am intimately familiar with their testimonies and their life experiences. While not exhaustive, my description is accurate enough to make my main point – which you completely missed.
“An outsider may mistakenly think …“
You mistake me for an outsider. You seem to display little appreciation or sensitivity to the love and self-sacrifice represented by what I describe. This part of your response feels like you are either preaching to yourself or to faithful onlookers. You are looking right past my words.
“… an outsider may think …The Holy Ghost changes our hearts … Once we have felt this change of heart … Some members may … For others, …With patience and study, … At other times…”
I am very familiar with this script.
“As you continue in what you have termed a “thoughtful evaluation of Mormonism,” I think it is unlikely that you will suddenly become converted. From what I can tell, the experiences of Paul and Alma the Younger are unusual in the extreme.”
That’s why I placed Paul on the far end of the spectrum and me somewhere in the middle. I invite you to go back and re-read that entire paragraph trying not to filter my words through your biased expectations.
“You seem more interested in finding a god that will do your will; one that will conform to your expectations of right conduct.”
This is a distorted characterization that I find offensive. Go back and read my final paragraphs. I am not interested in finding a God to conform to my personal arbitrary will. I carefully examined the history and teachings of a singular religious institution to which I deeply committed myself based on limited insight and then found moral failings that, after a long prayerful struggle, I could no longer abide. I returned to a “square one” construal of God that was simple and not tethered to implausible claims and troubling attributes.
Sometimes it feels like faithful Mormons are so wrapped up in defensiveness that they are blind to the turmoil experienced by those who after long struggles feel must choose to leave. They often assuage the dissonance this produces with simplistic and unwarranted assessments as the apostate’s motivation. When self-preserving “in-group” instinct kicks in good people suddenly become ignorant “outsiders,” even a man who has patiently and selflessly supported his family in a faith tradition that he finds deeply problematical – a man who constantly second guesses himself rather than take the least chance of doing more harm than good. it has been 25 years of loving, disciplined and silent deference in face of the profound discrepancies between the “correlated” Mormonism that I saw filling my families field of view and the disheartening truth I discovered.
My circumstances have presented me with what felt like a Solomon’s choice. The Mormon Church’s official policies and actions share in the responsibility for creating this. I owned that choice. I sacrificed to keep my family intact. I was not about to trust the Mormon leadership to do the same. As I say this I recognize that my wife deserves as much credit for not listening to some official counsel – for not buying into their dogmatic moral point of reference concerning her status in the next life.
“Faith in God and in His Church usually begins … I am afraid that your study of Mormonism will be one in which you are ever learning, but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.”
For reasons I’ve expressed, I don’t appreciate your conclusion. It comes across as smug and unwarranted. Would you agree that your words could just as readily proceed from the mouth of a devout Muslim, Catholic, Scientologist, or Mormon Fundamentalist? Now, there’s a paradox. If you are so inclined, re-read my last few paragraphs. Notice that in the face of this “exclusive religion” paradox I am still privileging Mormonism through my continued engagement.
“… I think you might be interested in listening to and/or reading each of Mike Ash’s articles.”
I have already listened to those that have been posted and will likely listen to/read the rest.
“Also, a book I recently read that you might find interesting is “What’s So Great About Christianity” by Dinesh D’Souza. And, of course, there is a small volume called the Book of Mormon…”
I am familiar with D’Souza’s book as well as his political positions and rhetorical style. His recent book about President Obama has the following tidbit on the back cover that gives a flavor of the latter:
“The most powerful country in the world is being governed according to the dreams of a Luo tribesman of the 1950s — a polygamist who abandoned his wives, drank himself into stupors, and bounced around on two iron legs … This philandering, inebriated African socialist, who raged against the world for denying him the realization of his anti-colonial ambitions, is now setting the nation’s agenda through the reincarnation of his dreams in his son.”
I am also not sure whether D’Souza even accepts Mormons as Christians. I suspect not. But, perhaps his politics, or the specifics of his theology, need not matter, in general or to you – only the bits that confirm .
JT
By way of disclosure I’ll begin with my Mormon background. I too devoted more than two decades of my adult life to the LDS Church. I believe I committed to do this based on inaccurate and incomplete information regarding the Church. I too remain interested in the Church and it’s teachings because my family and my community are predominately Mormon. At times I read information from site like this because I want to prevent at least some self deception that comes from confirmation and other biases.
I have not yet listened to the podcast, but will soon. I post now to comment on the above exchange between Steve and JT. As I read this, it does seem that Steve is missing much of what JT is trying to communicate. From my perspective, Steve’s responses may be helpful to the believers, and problematic to a former Mormon. However, this would also be the case if the exchange were over analogous issues in another religion like the JW Church. A test I like to use (obviously still riddled with my own bias) is attempting to look at things from the perspective of a true outsider (a non-Mormon who has no conclusion about Mormon claims to authority or truth). I think a true outsider would also conclude that in many instances Steve has not paid attention to what JT has actually written. I think this kind of defense harms the Church more than it protects the Church. As a non-believer who admits he may be wrong about the Church, I beg of you (Steve) to address the issues that JT brings up instead of the straw men you have created. Your straw man approach undermines your credibility or reliability from my perspective. If you’re right about the Church, I for one need you to address the issues directly, even if it is only to say that you don’t know the answer. Honest admission of ignorance may not win me over, but it won’t turn me away either.
Thanks,
Zack
Zack,
What specifically would like me to address?
Steve
Steve,
First of all, thank you for the quick reply.
Regarding the specifics I’d like you to address, JT has given those above. You did address many of his questions, but sometimes I think you missed his point. One example of this would be when you stated:
“you further seem to assume that we have the capacity to determine in every instance what will cause us to flourish in this life.”
I think you read your assumption into what JT wrote. To me it was obvious that JT had not made that assumption. But then again, my bias seems to be very similar to his. I have been known to mis-read the words of others (all too often). Maybe I should take that into consideration and cut you more slack in this regard.
The unaddressed issue that most stood out to me was the “claim that the Mormon construal of God serves as a poor point of moral reference.” I would ask, why should I accept what seem to be discrepancies in the “Mormon constual” of God. If I see such discrepancies in Scientology, I doubt you’d recommend I “shelve” the discrepancies and have faith that this is one way for God to test my faith. We might even be able to agree that it’s just one of many indications that Scientology is merely another organization of men. I think you began to address this by indicating that we need to decide if we will have faith or not, but I think the underlying question is “why?” Why should I have faith in the LDS interpretation of God? Why not have faith in the Methodist’s. Why not have an Agnostic faith that “if there is a God, I’ll trust he’ll rejoice in my reliance on reason and desire to help others flourish”? Why should I have faith in something that seems unreasonable to me. You wrote, “This life is, in part, a test and in part a place where we gain experience and grow.” How do I know the test is not to follow Christ by withdrawing my support from any organization that refuses to publicly denounce its specific justifications for denial of “priesthood blessings”?
Thanks,
Zack
Zack,
The issues you raise seem to be epistemological in nature. In other words, they are based in an inquiry regarding how we come to know things to be true. Your questions seem to all be variations on the overarching question of which is better, human reason or divine revelation.
You have asked, “Why should I accept what seem to be discrepancies in the ‘Mormon construal’ of God” and “Why should I have faith in something that seems unreasonable to me?”
I suppose we could take each issue you may identify and see if I can come up with a rational way to explain what had previously seemed to be a discrepancy. I’m afraid I may not know enough to be able to address every apparent discrepancy and I’m not sure you would accept the explanations even if I could offer them since they may conflict with certain assumptions you have about the way God and the universe should operate.
Furthermore, I’ll admit that there are times that I encounter discrepancies that I am unable to resolve intellectually. At that point, the only way for me to handle such issues is to admit that I don’t know everything, but God does. I am willing to accept the idea that if there is a discrepancy, it is not due to God being arbitrary and capricious, and certainly not because I know better than God how things should be run down here.
Your question about other religions reminds me of a question my wife was asked while she was on splits with the missionaries in London. She encountered a Muslim man and began discussing the Book of Mormon. She bore her testimony of the Book of Mormon and told him that God had revealed to her that it was true. He asked her if she had read the Koran. She said that she had not. He told her that God had revealed to him that the Koran was true, and that was the end of the discussion. She then resolved to read the Koran. She and I have both done so and, while we find parts of the Koran to be spiritually uplifting, we have not been persuaded to become Muslim.
I think we can learn from this that so much of what we believe depends upon what we want to believe. So why should we want to believe in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? I’m sure I can’t provide an answer that would satisfy everyone. Otherwise, I think we would all be Mormons. But for me, I want to believe primarily because it is through the practices of Mormonism that I feel a connection with God. I maintain that connection when I am faithful to the covenants I have made, and I feel distant from God when I am not. Additionally, while there are some things about the history and teachings of the Church that I find to be difficult, I mostly find only joy and peace in the doctrines of the Church. With respect to practical living, if I were to set out to rationally construct a method for right living, I could do no better than to suggest that people live as the Mormons do. For these reasons, and probably others, while my faith is sometimes challenged, I maintain a desire to believe. This Church leads me closer to God.
To reject God in favor of atheism or agnosticism is to conclude that our powers of reasoning are more effective in determining the right way to live than revelation from God. God has specifically warned us against such thinking. (See Isaiah 55:8 & 2 Ne. 9:28-29.) I recommended to JT the book “What’s So Great About Christianity” by Dinesh D’Souza. (Apparently JT is unwilling to consider this book as he disagrees with D’Souza’s politics. Perhaps you will not feel the same way.) In that book, D’Souza illustrates how societies that reject God in favor of atheism or agnosticism lead to death, destruction and misery. While it is true that there are examples of Christian regimes that have also been tyrannical and violent, they have not been so to the same extreme. And to the extent they have been evil, it has been in spite of Christian beliefs and not because of them. In contrast, it is human reasoning and utopian thinking that has led to Nazism and Communism.
Your final question is unclear. It seems to be a sarcastic jab at the Church for not apologizing for having withheld the priesthood from Blacks or for comments made in justification of that policy. Again, all I can say is that I believe that this is Christ’s Church and it is led by men who receive revelation from God. These men are imperfect and can make mistakes in their pronouncements and administrations of God’s affairs on Earth. Of course, I am imperfect as well and I may err in my judgment of when the Church leaders are incorrect. In my view, it would be foolish to leave the Church on the basis that, by my reasoning, God’s prophets have employed faulty reasoning. As God has never claimed that his prophets are infallible, the fact that Church leaders can make mistakes does not mean the Church is not true.
Steve,
I agree, the questions you referred to were all about epistemology. Fortunately for any readers of this thread, you were able to cut through my redundancy. I further agree that specifically addressing each of the items I perceive as discrepancies is unlikely to change my mind; even if the Church’s claims are true, answers may not be available, and as you said, you might not be aware of some answers that are available. If you place my current perspective/bias on top of all of that, it’s likely that such an approach would just waste your time.
You said:
“I think we can learn from this that so much of what we believe depends upon what we want to believe. So why should we want to believe in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? I’m sure I can’t provide an answer that would satisfy everyone.”
You went on to explain your desire to believe and what that belief does for you (in terms of your spiritual growth, not selfish fulfillment). This was beautiful. Your answer won’t satisfy all, but it works for you. This is the kind of testimony I wish I could hear more often in fast and testimony meeting (yes, I still attend every Sunday with my family). Even though my beliefs differ from yours greatly, I am edified to learn something of how you are strengthened. Thank you!
You also said:
“To reject God in favor of atheism or agnosticism is to conclude that our powers of reasoning are more effective in determining the right way to live than revelation from God.”
I struggle with this one. First of all, I see my disaffection as a rejection of a church that claims to be led by God, not as a rejection of God. But, putting that aside, one could reject God on the premise that their own powers of reasoning are better than revelation in determining what is right or wrong. However, my determination of what is right and wrong still involves what I see as a great deal of faith. Since my disaffection from the Church, my primary values have remained virtually unchanged. The values that come to mind right now are charity (Christ-like love), honesty, truth, joy (my own and that of others), and relationships with my loved ones. I try to weigh my actions against those values (and others). I am accepting, based on some kind of faith, that to live my life in accordance with these values is good and will result in an increase in good (and if I’m honest, repentance or a decrease in bad on my part). I do have a problem accepting that other men (such as the prophets and apostles) have authority to receive revelation for me. I actually feel more accountable for my actions now than I did as a believer. I cannot attribute any responsibility for my actions from this point on to any Church leader. For me, accepting these leaders’ teachings is having faith in the arm of flesh. This takes us right back to epistemology, doesn’t it. In this case it’s, “why should I believe these men are acting on behalf of God?” If you accept they are acting on behalf of God, then following them is not faith in the arm of flesh, but faith in God, because you believe God is guiding them.
Regarding “human reasoning and utopian thinking that has led to Nazism and Communism”, I would disagree. I think greed and lust for power led to Nazism and Communism. However, I would also attribute many of the atrocities of self-proclaimed Christians or otherwise religious followers to greed and lust for power and not to the religions themselves (though some examples of religious influence for the bad come to mind). But this is just my interpretation of motives.
I’m sorry for what appeared to be a sarcastic jab. I did not consciously intend it that way. I have a tendency to be sarcastic that runs deep, and I cannot say that there wasn’t at some level an attempt to jab. I can say that I was consciously trying to tie my concern with epistemology back to the subject of the podcast. I was hoping in this way my comments wouldn’t seem too far of topic. I’m sorry this seems sarcastic. It really is an issue for me. It became part of a larger issue (priesthood ban in general) that I shelved long ago when I joined the Church. It was only one of many items that bore the weight of cognitive dissonance which finally broke that proverbial shelf.
You said:
“As God has never claimed that his prophets are infallible, the fact that Church leaders can make mistakes does not mean the Church is not true.”
Agreed. My concern is not that an oracle of God would make a mistake; I think it’s the other way around; I think the Church tries to portray itself as more perfect than it is. Bringing this back to my concern that the Church leaders will not publicly denounce the teachings used to justify the priesthood ban, it’s not the justifications that lead me to believe these men have no special or exclusive communication with God. It is the fact that they used these justifications with no apparent correction from God and will not publicly admit the Church’s justifications were wrong, hurtful, and prevented (and still prevent) many from joining the Church and partaking of what the Church claims are the saving ordinances of the gospel. (Yes, the individuals who refuse to join the Church because of the ban could choose to join, but trying to look at this from an outsiders perspective, I can see no reason why they would?) In addition we are taught the “Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet” and “when the prophet speaks the debate is over”. If these men are fallible (it seems you and I agree they are), shouldn’t we be taught instead to scrutinize and critically evaluate every word that comes out of their mouths? After all, the stakes are high (serving our fellow beings and eternal life), and we assume that mistakes can be made. I could write much more in this area, but I fear I’ve said too much already.
I think you alluded to the Book of Mormon promise of pondering and praying and how at least reading the Koran led you and your wife to an understanding that the Koran does not inspire you like the Book of Mormon does. However, this could be due to your cultural or religious background as apposed to the Koran not being the word of Allah. It could merely be you do not desire the Koran to be true. I don’t think you directly distinguished why reliance on faith in the Church in spite of what seem to me like glaring inconsistencies is a preferred method of gaining knowledge. This is why I expressed that I see inconsistencies in the Church’s truth claims. I see the same type of inconsistencies in other churches. There seems to be no reason to have faith in the LDS Church and not in other churches, and if I’m to have faith in them all while abandoning reason, I see no reliable distinguishing factor to allow for discriminating between the options.
You did say that often our desire to believe leads us to believe. I have conflicting desires. I desire to believe in the Church because my family and community are disturbed by my disbelief. I want to believe because I held the leaders of the Church and their teachings in high regard. I want to believe for the selfish reason of not wanting to admit to a new belief that I was fooled. On the other hand I want to pursue truth. Will I arrive at ultimate truth through reason? No. Can I draw closer to it in this way? I think so. To summarize, I have some reason to want to believe; I don’t have reason to believe.
You have expressed how the Church and its teachings inspire and encourage you. I am grateful for that. It builds you up and helps you to serve others, as nothing else does I presume; why would you follow something else? Though I still see no reason for me to believe in the Church’s claims, you have inspired me to be a better person.
Thanks,
Zack
I just finished listening to Marcus H. Martins’ address. I noticed many of the same things JT noticed and agree that these things seem problematic. I will only mention one item that seemed poignantly ironic to me. Bro. Martins mentioned that prior to the 1978 declaration, there were few privileges of Church membership in which he could not partake, among those was the officiating in priesthood ordinances. Since disclosing my disbelief, I have been allowed by two separate bishops to officiate in priesthood ordinances. I, an apostate who admits no belief in the restoration of the gospel nor the authority of the priesthood, am allowed to participate in priesthood ordinances, yet bro. Martins was not allowed to participate in these ordinances, even though he cherished this gospel and its associated priesthood, merely because of the color of his skin.
On a more positive note, I enjoyed the talk. I served a mission in Brazil. Though bro. Martins didn’t speak in Portuguese, his accent and references to Brazil left me feeling nostalgic for that time so long ago (que saudades!).
Thanks for posting the podcast,
Zack
Zack,
Thank you for your kind words. Based on what you have said, I hope you will indulge one more comment from me. As we have agreed, your questions are based on the issue of how we can know things are true. I think you probably understand that there are a variety of ways to know things. Only one of those is human reason. Another powerful source of knowledge comes through the Spirit of God. As you have said you still have a desire to believe, I hope you will persist in that desire. I hope that as you do, you will set aside desires you may have against belief. If you do, I think that with time, that will open up the possibility of enhanced spiritual knowledge. The reason I have felt compelled to add this note is that I have experienced a period of spiritual uncertainty. This did not arise from any personal sin on my part, but rather through an intellectual inquiry. I don’t remember the specific issue, but I do remember that I was reading information on an atheist website when I suddenly felt a loss of the spiritual assurance that had earlier supported my belief in the Church. In spite of the loss of the sustaining influence of the Spirit, I persisted in my Church activity. (I was the elders quorum president at the time.) I continued praying, reading the scriptures, attending Church, and doing all I could in a desire that the spiritual knowledge I enjoyed would return. It took a matter of weeks, and I don’t recall how it happened, but eventually my spiritual conviction of the truthfulness of the Church returned. That was a number of years ago, and that conviction has not left me since. I still don’t understand why I had that experience. But perhaps it was so I could share it with someone like you and let you know that I understand how it feels to have intellectual doubts and a lack of spiritual certainty. I also understand how it feels to be sustained by a sense of spiritual assurance. I prefer the latter state of existence and hope that I can forever maintain it.
Steve
Hi Steve et al,
First of all I want to say how much I have enjoyed this respectful expression of opinions/feelings/observations. I find myself reading each one and agreeing with most of what each contributor says! I guess I am easily swayed, like Louis XVI, believing whatever was the last counsel received…
By way of introduction or offering perspective, I am an active LDS member, American born but living in Canada. I love the vision for humanity – in this life and the eternities – espoused in LDS teachings. I love so many of the people I’ve met through the church over the years, and often feel a kismet or destiny in having met them (members and non-members alike). This feeling of connection with these people also, to use a cliche, strengthens my testimony.
Anyway, based on your conversations, I have a lot of respect for the ideas of who have contributed. However, I would like to offer Steve some counsel and perspective from someone living outside the US. Your recommendation of “What’s So Great About Christianity” does your opinions no credit. I don’t know if you live in Utah or not, but please understand that the Utah political mindset is an anathema to many(?) most(?) elsewhere. It is something I struggle with, knowing that so many of my co-religionists harbour such hateful feelings towards President Obama and anyone with a political perspective anywhere to the left of Attila the Hun (that is my attempt at humour – there, you can tell by my spelling that I’ve become Canadianized).
This is something that I feel we have to be very careful about in the church. Many of us in Canada were apalled that BYU would grant VP Cheney an honourary degree – to us here he is considered to be something closer to a war criminal.
But the specifics of politics are not important or are not what I am writing about – I am just using these as examples. What is important is that LDS people, particularly those in Utah and culturally similar areas, be aware that their political leanings/prejudices (?) (particularly the negativity around President Obama – not his policies but his life, backstory and persona) are NOT shared by the majority of Church members outside that cultural zone. Referencing those leanings/prejudices leads those of us “outside the zone” to question the credibility of the rest of what you might have to say.
Again, I am really enjoying this exchange, but just wanted to add that particular perspective because that author’s comments REALLY bother me. They display too much ignorance and prejudice to be worthy of recommendation in this seemingly thoughtful and enlightened forum.
Joy,
It appears that you may have fallen for JT’s poisoning of the well and ad hominem attack against D’Souza (or you are choosing to engage in it yourself). If you think carefully about what you and JT are saying, you will see that the fact that D’Souza is a political conservative has nothing to do with his opinions regarding atheism and agnosticism. I perhaps should have been clearer in pointing out that What’s So Great About Christianity is a work of Christian Apologetics and is not a political treatise. Anyone would benefit from reading it, regardless of their political persuasion. JT’s comment about D’Souza’s views of whether Mormons are Christians is somewhat more relevant to this discussion than D’Souza’s views of President Obama, but Mormonism is not addressed in the book. Certainly there are matters upon which Mormons would disagree with D’Souza with respect to theology. However, I would think that any open-minded, rational liberal would benefit from reading this book as much as any political conservative.
Thanks for this clarification/amplification. I will try to check out the publication.
Cheers!
знакомства город калуга для глухих