FAIR

Faithful Study Resources for Come, Follow Me

Mike Ash

FREE BOOK CHAPTER: “‘Translating’ Restoration Scripture”

by

Can the Book of Mormon be the Word of God and inspired fiction? Did Joseph Smith’s cultural worldview influence the way he understood the relationship between New World people and the 10 Lost Tribes? How might have Joseph’s worldview influenced his understanding of both the Nephite Interpreters and his own seer stone? What did the Nephite Interpreters look like and how did they resemble “spectacles”? Did Joseph use a seer stone, Interpreters, or the Urim and Thummim to translate the Nephite records? Discussions on these issues begin (to a great degree) in Chapter 23 of my book, Rethinking Revelation and the Human Element in Scripture: A Prophet’s Role as Creative Co-Author.

Chapter 23 is entitled, “‘Translating’ Restoration Scripture,” and is currently available as a FREE pdf file to download here (for a limited time). Meanwhile, my book, Rethinking Revelation, is available in print in the FAIR bookstore, or in print and Kindle format from Amazon. [Read more…] about FREE BOOK CHAPTER: “‘Translating’ Restoration Scripture”

A Skeptical Believer

by

[Cross-posted from Mike Ash’s personal blog.]

Why my skeptical nature doesn’t thwart my faith.

It’s Who I Am

I’m a skeptic at heart. While this claim might give pause to those who are either critical of my LDS beliefs or are critical of any belief in the supernatural (such as in a God, or a hereafter), I have no other way to understand myself without including a noticeable degree of skepticism.

I wasn’t always this way. Like many (if not most) youngsters, I believed what I was told by my parents, teachers, and adults of authority. Like a number of other people, however, time proved that all people are fallible, are sometimes wrong, and don’t know everything. Maturity taught me that just because someone smart knows something about X, doesn’t necessarily mean they are also an expert on Y. [Read more…] about A Skeptical Believer

Shaken Faith Syndrome: Early to the Party, But Still Relevant

by

Available from the FAIR bookstore

[Cross-posted from Mike Ash’s personal blog.]

My first book attempted to assuage the faith-crisis concerns of struggling Latter-day Saints. The work continues.

The First Step

At the risk of sounding boastful, I’ve authored three books (with a fourth on the way) and hundreds of articles (both in print and on-line) in the hopes of reinforcing and safeguarding the faith of Latter-day Saints. I don’t mention these accomplishments to brag, but rather to lament. Despite hundreds of hours researching and writing thousands of pages of material, I find that through the years, over and over again, members who struggle with their faith fall trap to the same problems I addressed a dozen years ago.

Earlier this year (2020), I received an email from someone who asked if my views expressed in my book Shaken Faith Syndrome (2008 and updated in 2013) have changed since I wrote the book. My answer was that the arguments I made in that book are virtually unchanged and that the cognitive suggestions and observations I made then, are equally applicable now.

As I’ll try to address in future articles, members today stumble over the same cognitive dilemmas (often of their own making) which sets them up for problems when they encounter faith-challenging material. As a people, we haven’t matured in our intellectual approach to gospel topics (despite the fact that even the Church had made attempts to update our thinking with articles such as those included in the Gospel Topics, essays). [Read more…] about Shaken Faith Syndrome: Early to the Party, But Still Relevant

The Enlightenment of Neo-Mormons

by

In Greek, the word neos means “new.” In English, the prefix “neo” generally refers to something that is new, revived, or newly refreshed. We have compounds such as neo-classic, neo-Darwinism, neo-Nazis, neo-Hellenism, neo-Platonism, neo-orthodox Mormons, and more.

While Neo-Mormons might refer to Mormons who take a new or modified approach to Mormon matters, for the purpose of this post Neo-Mormons refer to those who compare their exit from Mormonism to the character in the fictional movie, The Matrix.

For those who haven’t seen the movie, Keanu Reeves plays the character of Thomas Anderson, a computer programmer and infamous hacker known as “Neo” (the name by which he is known throughout the movie). Morpheus, another infamous hacker (who is almost as much myth as legend), contacts Neo to warn him that his life in danger.

After meeting face to face, Morpheus explains that the world in which Neo lives is not “real” but offers Neo the opportunity to transition to the real world. Neo can either swallow a red pill which will extract him from the “Matrix” (the computer-generated world in which he lives) or he can choose to swallow the blue pill which will cause Neo to wake up in his bed at home, forgetting the entire conversation and everything about the Matrix. If he takes the red pill, he could never go back to the way things were. If he takes the blue pill, he could be happily ignorant to reality. Neo takes the red pill, wakes up in the “real” world and discovers that the Matrix was a world of little more than digital smoke and mirrors.

Neo’s red pill vs. blue pill dilemma has frequently been commandeered by former Mormons in their attempt to explain their new perspective of reality once they left Mormonism. According to several ex-Mormons, they, like Neo, were confronted at some point with information that caused (or even forced) them to choose between the red pill and blue pill. In every case in which I’ve seen the analogy used, the former (or teetering) member took the red pill. They became “enlightened,” and discovered the “truth,” or “reality” of Mormonism.

This new enlightenment allowed them, like Neo, to see (sometimes for the first time) truth with eyes wide open. That truth, they claim, destroyed the untruths found in Mormonism and exposed it as a man-made institution sitting on a continuum somewhere between an evil enterprise and a well-meaning assembly of honorable but gullible dupes.

While I understand that there is no such thing as a perfect analogy, I think the Neo Mormon/Matrix analogy falls flat. First, the red pill vs blue pill analogy implies that ex-Mormons are not only open to the truth but can see the truth, while believing Mormons stick their heads in the sand (taking the blue pill) and don’t want to see the new information that comes with taking the red pill.

The fact is, however, that myriad of LDS scholars, lay members, and believing students of Mormonism, are equally as informed about the supposedly troubling Mormon information. Despite seeing this same information they still accept the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith and the continuation of modern prophets today. There’s no hiding of heads in the sand, no rejecting the red pill because they don’t want to see allegedly challenging issues. The eyes of informed Latter-day Saints are at least as wide open to all the same information as any critic.

Secondly, the new information doesn’t automatically destroy basic Mormon beliefs. Taking the red pill does not automatically prove that Mormonism is false. While some people may find the critics’ interpretations of the data to be convincing, such interpretations are not the automatic definitive conclusions to understanding the data. To insist that there is only one way to interpret the data is naïve and sophomoric. There are no slam dunks proving nor debunking Mormonism. There is only evidence, and evidence must be weighed.

Thirdly, everyone assumes they are “right.” We have reasons for our beliefs. Those reasons may not be transferrable; they may not, for example, convince others, even when they make sense to us. The fact is—and a growing number of studies bear this out—intellect alone does not impel humans to believe or disbelieve. In other words, despite the ridicule by some critics who claim that believers rely on “feelings” while they (the critics) rely on reason, the simple fact is that all people’s beliefs are influenced, at least to some degree, by “feelings.” No human is a purely rational creature.

Differences in religious opinions and beliefs are not anything like what we might imagine with a fictional Neo-Mormon who takes the red pill and a believing Mormon who takes the blue pill. Instead, the differences are much more akin to what we find among people who embrace divergent political views. If you are a staunch Democrat it doesn’t mean that you’ve taken the red pill—that your eyes are wide open—and that Republicans have swallowed the blue pill. If you are a staunch Republican, you are not seeing reality while your Democrat friends hide their heads in the sand. Some members of each party may like to think that’s the case, but it isn’t.

Lastly, we run into the problem of changing minds. Just as some Democrats become Republicans and some Republicans become Democrats, some members go through periods of disbelief, doubt, and possibly even separation from Mormonism. I have a couple of friends who have been married to the same spouse several times. They get divorced, then remarried, more than once—each time to the same person. Some members or former members seem to have a similar relationship with the Church. They are members (perhaps from birth), then leave the church over “troubling” issues, then return because of spiritual or intellectual resolution, then leave again over spiritual or intellectual quandaries, and so forth.

In which phase of their change can they claim to be the surest of their beliefs? Obviously, it would be the most current phase. They can look back and tell themselves that in their earlier phase they were duped, but this time they got it right. The problem is, however, that we all tell ourselves this same story (it’s a form of confirmation bias). Studies show that our memories of the past are influenced by our present selves—in other words, we can’t accurately remember how we felt about our past situation because we can’t escape our current situation.

As I’ve matured in life, wisdom, and Gospel understanding, I’ve had to modify paradigms many times—rejecting those things that I’ve found to be weak, and embracing those things which I’ve found to be strong. It would be foolish of me to think that I’ve reach a zenith—that I’ve reached a point where I’m right about everything I reject, and never wrong about everything I accept. I’m among those who has seen all the details supposedly hidden in the Matrix. I’ve seen the same data which allegedly is revealed to those Neo-Mormons who swallow the red pill. And yet, I believe.

For me, the same data that causes some members to falter simply illuminates the world I already knew. I absolutely had to modify my worldview by absorbing new facts, rejecting common myths, and by recontextualizing some of the things which didn’t seem to fit my previous world-view (which, by the way, is the same modification process we find in the evolution and revolution of scientific paradigms). From my current perspective, however, I find that most of the data fits comfortably within a framework that I embraced.

While I like to think that my eyes are opened wider with every new bit of data, I’ve found that new discoveries haven’t forced (or enticed) me into rejecting Mormonism as a mirage, a fabrication, or a Matrix of human creation. And just because someone else comes to a different conclusion than my own (based on the same data) doesn’t mean that they are more correct, that they’ve swallowed the red pill while I swallowed the blue pill, hid my head in the sand, and simply ignored conflicting information.

From a Matrix analogy, I don’t think that there are any real Neo-Mormons. There are no red pills and blue pills which ultimately expose or conceal the truth. As both science and religion tells us, we are all related and part of something greater than our individual selves. All humans are very similar—including the fact that we are faced with similar cognitive, physical, psychological, and emotional challenges and strengths— and we are also all unique in interesting and complex ways.

This, to me, is what makes God’s plan—as expressed in the LDS faith—so appealing. It’s impossible for you to fully know me, or me to fully know you. We can’t escape our own heads, or our physiological influences or impediments. We can never fully know when we are the ones who are doing the “acting” or when we are being “acted upon” (2 Ne. 2:14).

We are told not to judge others (outside of specific instances involving ecclesiastical or legislative authority) because we are not only weak ourselves and influenced by too many factors to be good judges, but because we cannot know all the factors involved in someone else’s choices. Only God knows. He knows why we do the things we do, say the things we say, and make the choices we make.

While some of those who have left Mormonism (or who consider leaving Mormonism) believe that they can see reality, the truth is that their eyesight is no better than that of believers. Their logic and reasoning is no better than that of believers. And they certainly are no more open to the “truth” because they decided to reject Mormonism, than those who accept Mormonism. Swallowing the red pill simply means that you consciously chose to reject Mormonism because of how you interpret the data. Swallowing the blue pill means that you consciously chose to accept Mormonism because of how you interpret the data.

If there is an analogy to be made with the movie The Matrix it is this: If we believe that a rejection of Mormonism automatically comes with seeing the ambiguities in Mormon history or the scriptures—that the data automatically compels the intellectually honest to reject the LDS faith and that the data cannot be honestly accepted as consistent with LDS faith claims—then we are believing in an illusion and we are still trapped in the Matrix.

—

Michael R. Ash is the author of: Of Faith and Reason: 80 Evidences Supporting The Prophet Joseph Smith. He is the owner and operator of MormonFortress.com and is on the management team for FairMormon. He has been published in Sunstone, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, the Maxwell Institute’s FARMS Review, and is the author of Shaken Faith Syndrome: Strengthening One’s Testimony in the Face of Criticism and Doubt. He and his wife live in Ogden, Utah, and have three daughters.

Some Thoughts on Finding “Truth”: The Right Tool for the Job

by

Nicolaus Copernicus Monument by Bertel Thorvaldsen

According to the on-line Oxford Dictionary, science is defined as “the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.”[i] In short, science works by interpreting data, and data is typically collected through observations (using eyes, computers, microscopes, etc.).

Thousands of years ago, in the early days of human history, our ancestors could see that the sun, moon, planets, and stars moved across the sky. Direct observation demonstrated that the sun rose in the east and set in the west. In winter months, the days became shorter, and in the summer, longer. The Milky Way also rises from the horizon. North Americans watch the ribbon of stars arch into the sky, nearly paralleling the horizon in the winter months, and arching straight overhead during the summer months.

Very early humans recorded the movement of these celestial objects. NASA, for example, points to the discovery of an ancient lunar calendar that dates to about 32,000 B.C.[ii] The ancient Egyptians likewise had an annual calendar that was based on the “rhythms of the farming year.”[iii] The “morning rising of Sirius or the morning setting of Pleiades, were taken as announcing the Nile flood or as a reminder to plough.”[iv]

All evidence, and the direct eye-witness observations of millions of people all over the world, testified that celestial objects moved above the Earth. Any argument for an alternative interpretation of the observable data would have been preposterous. In fact, when the Greek mathematician and astronomer Aristarchus (about 300 B.C.) suggested that the Earth revolved around the sun (rather than the sun around the Earth), his arguments were rejected because they didn’t fit the prevailing understanding of the cosmos.

It was nearly 2000 years later before Copernicus revived the theory in the mid-1500s (and his writings, like Aristarchus before him, were initially rejected by many people). The Copernicus model was imperfect, however, and it wasn’t until Kepler suggested elliptical orbits (instead of circular orbits) that some of the problems began to fade. In 1632 Galileo could support the Copernicus/Kepler model with observations made through the newly invented telescope.

For thousands of years before Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo, humans were technically “wrong” regarding what they saw with their very eyes. They weren’t wrong that the sky seemed to move, and they weren’t wrong knowing when to plant and harvest, but they didn’t have a complete understanding as to how the sky appeared to move. Sixteenth-century astronomers added information to the undeniable fact that the sky appears to move, by showing that the universe was not geocentric (Earth-centered), but rather that the universe was heliocentric (sun-centered). While the demarcation between accurate and inaccurate might be debated, I see the Copernicus/Kepler resolution as building on previously accurate beliefs, and correcting erroneous beliefs. There really is an Earth, a sun, a moon, planets, and stars, and they somehow move in predictable patterns with very real relationships to each other.

In our modern world, more modifications were made thanks to better astronomical tools. We now know that a heliocentric universe is also incorrect. Our planets orbit around the sun, but the universe doesn’t. Our solar system orbits around the center of our Milky Way Galaxy, and our galaxy is just one of perhaps a hundred billion galaxies in the observable universe.[v] Each new refinement comes, in part, by building on the discoveries and calculations of previous scientists, as well as continually improved technology (or tools) which offer greater access to understanding the space in which we live.

Even though scientific understanding has evolved tremendously in the course of human history, each generation is typically pretty confident that they have the answers (or are, at least, headed in the right direction). While the humble and inquisitive can acknowledge that we still have a lot to learn, it’s human nature to believe that we are probably right. It’s hard to imagine that some of our cherished truths might be overturned or drastically altered with additional discoveries—but some of them will.

While we know more today (scientifically) and have achieved more in modern times (technologically) than we might have even imaged tens of thousands of years ago, I find it fascinating that the more we learn and achieve, the more we discover, ironically, that there is an even greater collective of things which are unknown.

It’s as if we achieve knowledge and technology by discovering a new doorway, but each door we open leads to the discovery of enormous storerooms filled with new data and information that needs exploration and answers. We might reach inside some of the rooms to examine and learn about those things contained therein, but we are never quite able to learn the full details of everything inside every room.

Sometimes, there are doorways within those rooms that lead to new related, yet undiscovered, information. And as we examine the few bits of things we can analyze and measure, new doors are opened just down the hall and we again peek into storerooms full of new mysteries. The opening of doors to the unknown seems to outpace those things which we can fully comprehend. The pursuit of such mysteries is exciting—especially as puzzles are solved and pieces come together—but is also never-ending.

One of the theoretical pursuits of science is to find the “theory for everything”—a unifying principal or paradigm that explains everything. We want to understand the overall structure of the building which houses all the doors, the rooms to which they lead, and the furnishings within. We hope—or at least suspect—that there may be a unifying set of laws that govern everything. But in the meantime, we find that some of the different rooms seem to have laws which don’t cooperate with the laws in other rooms.

A few years ago, I read a book entitled, Knocking on Heaven’s Door: How Physics and Scientific Thinking Illuminate the Universe and the Modern World, by Dr. Lisa Randall. Randall is one of America’s leading scientists on theoretical particle physics and cosmology, and her religious beliefs seem to be on the continuum somewhere between agnostic and atheist. Nevertheless, she recognizes that a turf war between science and religion can be avoided if we realize that the two perspectives don’t necessarily pitch their tents in the same campground. “Science is not religion. We’re not going to be able to answer the ‘why’ questions. … Religion asks questions about morals, whereas science just asks questions about the natural world.”[vi]

I’ve often heard those who lean toward the agnostic/atheist point of view as saying something to the effect: “I don’t believe that feelings are accurate barometers of truth”—and by “feelings” they are, of course, referring to spiritual promptings, manifestations, revelations, inspirations, or any other communication which comes via supernatural discourse or impressions.

The problems with such a claim, however, are numerous. First, I personally don’t believe that “feelings” accurately describes how I’ve received spiritual enlightenment (although this is a topic for another time). Secondly, all humans incorporate “feelings” in their decision-making process (yes, even scientists—which is part of the reason that science occasionally reverses the conclusions of previous positions). Thirdly, “truth” doesn’t universally describe all conclusions (which are often temporary points of consensus) in all fields of knowledge (including spiritual knowledge).

As noted above, there is yet to be discovered a “theory for everything,” and we often run into seemingly conflicting laws in the world of physics. Randall explains, for example, that “Newton’s laws are instrumental and correct, but they cease to apply at or near the speed of light where Einstein’s theory applies. Newton’s laws are at the same time both correct and incomplete. They apply over a limited domain.”[vii] This, in some ways, is not unlike what we find with the moving sky, moving Earth, and moving solar system models. All three positions have validity depending on one’s perspective and ability to measure and observe.

“As scales decrease,” notes Randall, “matter seems to be governed by properties so different that they appear to be part of entirely different universes.”[viii] Newton’s laws work well for the types of things he was able to observe (and the same kinds of things we can observe today) but at very small distances the rules change and we have to apply quantum mechanics. Likewise, at extremely high speeds the rules of relativity take over. With the enormous densities of black holes, we must turn to general relativity.[ix]

The rules and principles of quantum mechanics, string theories, and general relativity are theoretical tools to help us better understand our world and the cosmos. Just as the telescope helped humans understand the solar system, the microscope helped us understand the miniature world around us, and as DNA helps us understand our physical relationship to life on this planet, so likewise tools such as the Large Hadron Collider (nearly 600 feet underground, beneath the France-Switzerland border) help us understand the early formation of the universe.

The right tool is needed for each different job. We can’t measure heat with a hammer, or weight with a yardstick. When it comes to understanding spiritual truths, we must use spiritual tools such as humility, scriptures study, and prayer. There are currently no scientific tools available to examine the existence of God or the reality of the Resurrection.

Conversely, it’s important to recognize that the Holy Ghost reveals all of those that are “expedient,” or necessary, to return to God (D&C 75:10), not necessarily those things which explain quarks, black holes, gravity, Earth’s diversity of life, or even Book of Mormon geography. Revelation on scientific principles are typically not “expedient” for our divine family reunion.

The late scientist, Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, advocated what he termed “non-overlapping magisteria” (NOMA) for the supposed conflict between science and religion. Gould defined “magisteria”—a term he borrowed from Pope John Paul II—as “a domain where one form of teaching holds the appropriate tools for meaningful dialogue and resolution.”[x] While not all of his atheist friends agreed with Gould, the scholar argued that the domains of religion and science don’t overlap.

NOMA also cuts both ways. If religion can no longer dictate the nature of factual conclusions residing properly within the magisterium of science, then scientists cannot claim higher insight into moral truth from any superior knowledge of the world’s empirical constitution.[xi]

Truth is truth, and while the Holy Ghost may certainly prompt or inspire scientists and scholars, we should be open to accepting the scientific discoveries about the natural world because science offers the best tools for discovering those truths. As Joseph Smith said, “One of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may.”[xii]

While Randall sees no reason to believe in a God, and although she agrees that scientific tools cannot measure the existence of a divine being, she nevertheless believes that God, if He exists, should leave some sort of fingerprint on those things which can be measured by science. “…it is inconceivable from a scientific perspective,” she writes, “that God could continue to intervene without introducing some material trace of his actions.”[xiii] If Randall knew me and my religious beliefs, she might be surprised to find that I agree with her.

I personally believe that there is a grand unifying theory for everything; that there are top-tier laws and principles which govern all areas of physics. I also believe, however, that the grand unifying theory for everything governs all facets in our universe, including not only the physical world, but also the unseen world of the spiritual realm, and the moral codes of the divine realm. This grand law, is the law of God. Like the pinnacle of a pyramid, it sits above all other subordinate laws, including those physical laws discovered in science. If we fully understood the grand divine law, we would see that the spiritual world, moral principles, and physics are intertwined and are not—in the big scheme of existence—contrary to the other laws.

The problem is that we simply don’t know enough about physics, the cosmos, and our own material universe to confidently state with certainty that God’s imprint is absent. Before we understood those light waves which are invisible to human eyes, those waves were, for all intents and purposes, non-existent. While we can’t see—with the unaided eye—x-rays or infrared light, we know they exist because we’ve discovered tools which can measure or “see” them.

Thanks to physics, we do understand more about our world and cosmos than at any other time in the past (even if that understanding is incomplete). Scientists are aware, however, that there are many more things we really don’t understand. The stuff in the universe that interacts with light, notes Randall, “constitutes only about four percent of the energy density of the universe. About 23 percent of its energy is carried by something known as dark matter that has yet to be positively ID’d.”[xiv] Dark matter somehow interacts—albeit weakly—with matter we know. Detecting it, however, has thus far remained elusive.

“Even more mysterious than dark matter,” Randall continues, “is the substance that constitutes the remaining 73 percent and that has become known as dark energy.”[xv] Einsteinian equations for the universe are based, in part, on the matter and energy found in the universe. These equations show that some other energy—“not carried by matter… particles or other stuff”—is required to exist. The conclusion is based on the observations and “measurements of the characteristics of the universe.” This dark energy “doesn’t clump like conventional matter. It doesn’t dilute as the universe expands but maintains a constant density. The expansion of the universe is slowly accelerating as a consequence of this mysterious energy, which resides throughout the universe, even if it were empty of matter.”[xvi]

Dark energy and dark matter are possibly the mere tips of enormous icebergs of undiscovered properties and laws in our universe (or perhaps just in our dimension). Most scientists who have spent any time studying what we know about the universe, seem open to the possibility that there may be multiple universes, or even multiple dimensions in our own universe. “…space,” Randall explains, “might contain more than the three dimensions we know about: up-down, forward-backward, and left-right. In particular, it could contain entirely unseen dimensions that hold the key to understanding particle properties and masses.”[xvii]

I’m a big fan of science and I believe that science, as a self-correcting discipline, is moving closer to truths about how the diversity of life developed on Earth, and how our planet and perhaps the universe was formed. As a human institution, scientific explorations have, at times, stumbled, changed positions, or hit dead ends—but then so have more than a few of our religious beliefs for the simple fact that we can’t help but see through a glass, darkly (1 Corinthians 13:12; once again, a topic for another time).

Overall, I believe that scientific truths are part of God’s universal grand truth. Not only don’t we need to fear the discoveries which science brings to light, but we need to embrace those discoveries—even if it means reexamining religious traditions that are based on human assumptions.

With so much left to learn and discover, I think it’s a bit naïve to claim that God’s fingerprint is missing from the physical world. We have not yet discovered all the tools we need to measure the physical world. When, or if, we ever do, I suspect that God’s fingerprint will be as visible as a human fingerprint under ultraviolet light. Until that day comes, however, God has already given us the right tools to know that He is there. It’s found in all religions and in all cultures.

All people of the Earth—at every stage of known history—are given the ability to seek and find God through the spiritual practices of their culture, and according to the spiritual light available. The answer to God’s existence may also come packaged in the cultural raiment of those seeking spiritual enlightenment (another topic for another discussion). God grants all His children a door which can be opened to feel his presence—a door that can be reached by every normal human, regardless of their status or stature. Neither technological abundance, nor scientific deficiency, impacts access to spiritual tools. While I believe that the revelatory tool is as much a part of God’s universal law as is our embryonic understanding of physics, this “expedient” tool is all that is necessary to mark the path which ultimately leads back to the Father.

 

[i] https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/science (accessed 9 February 2017).

 

[ii] “The Oldest Lunar Calendars,” https://sservi.nasa.gov/articles/oldest-lunar-calendars/ (accessed 9 February 2017).

 

[iii] John Romer, Egypt: From the Great Pyramid to the Fall of the Middle Kingdom, V2 (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2017), 97.

 

[iv] Bartel L. van der Waerden, Science Awakening II: The Birth of Astronomy (Noordhoff International Publishing, 1974), 13.

 

[v] http://www.physics.org/facts/sand-galaxies.asp (accessed 9 February 2017).

 

[vi] Quoted by Corey S. Powell, “The Discover Interview: Lisa Randall,” Discover (July 2006), at http://discovermagazine.com/2006/jul/interview-randall/ (accessed 9 February 2017).

 

[vii] Lisa Randall, Knocking on Heaven’s Door: How Physics and Scientific Thinking Illuminate the Universe and the Modern World (Harper Collins Publishing, 2012; Kindle Edition), 8.

 

[viii] Ibid., 69.

 

[ix] Ibid., 71.

 

[x] Stephen Jay Gould, Rock of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life (New York: Ballantine Publishing Group, 199), 3.

 

[xi] Ibid., 9-10.

 

[xii] Joseph Smith, History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 5:499.

 

[xiii] Randall, 50-51.

 

[xiv] Ibid., 119-120.

 

[xv] Ibid., 122.

 

[xvi] Ibid., 123.

 

[xvii] Ibid., 119.

 

Michael R. Ash is the author of: Of Faith and Reason: 80 Evidences Supporting The Prophet Joseph Smith. He is the owner and operator of MormonFortress.com and is on the management team for FairMormon. He has been published in Sunstone, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, the Maxwell Institute’s FARMS Review, and is the author of Shaken Faith Syndrome: Strengthening One’s Testimony in the Face of Criticism and Doubt. He and his wife live in Ogden, Utah, and have three daughters.

 

Assumptions

by

Einstein

“Assumptions are made and most assumptions are wrong,” Albert Einstein.

We assume the best, we assume the worst. We assume what others are thinking or how they may behave in any given situation. Assumptions are the beliefs which drive what we infer from the world around us. Practically every second of our waking hours we infer things about our environment and the people around us because of belief-based assumptions. Quite frankly, we couldn’t navigate through life is this wasn’t so.

With so many things coming at us from all directions, assumptions help us make quick decisions so we don’t get stuck like a deer in headlights when we decide to go outside, drive to the store, or choose what we want on our pizza.

Dr. Daniel Kahneman, a well-known non-LDS psychologist explains that we humans have two metaphorical ways in which we think. He calls these System 1 and System 2.i

System 1 is the fast-acting assumption-driven method. It’s the instinctive level that gives us our gut reactions, our knee-jerk responses, and sees initial patterns. It is ready to contribute at a moment’s notice, is typically the first system called up in our brains, and the one which creates a coherent interpretation of what’s going on. System 2 on the other hand, is the brute when it comes to brainpower and the king when it comes to analyzing difficult data. Unfortunately, System 2 is also lazy (and thinking literally uses a lot of energy) so it usually kicks in when System 1 is overwhelmed, when more brain power is required, or when System 1 needs some confirming support.

Because it’s impossible to analyze everything all the time, we generally must rely on instincts formed by past experiences and contexts—in other words, we have to rely on assumptions—on System 1’s preconceptions, biases, pattern recognition, and predictions in order to think. System 1 draws on past experience—either recent events or distant memories—to formulate a quick assumption. If System 1 can get away with it—and it often does—it deals with inconsistencies by filling in the blanks, smoothing over the rough spots, and by fabricating coherency. What a mess we are as humans.

Sometimes Latter-day Saints get criticized for believing in the Church (or the Book of Mormon, or the prophet, etc.) because of “feelings.” Anyone who has received a testimony from the Holy Ghost, however, knows that a spiritual witness is much more than feelings. One of the wonderful things I love about this Church is that we don’t believe that feelings alone are the path to knowing truth. We believe in both study and faith (D&C 88:118).

While critics equate the LDS “burning in the bosom” with emotional feelings, and claim that feelings are a poor source for knowing truth, the fact is that more and more psychological studies prove that all people apply non-rational “feelings” in their process of making important decisions. It’s a part of humanity from which we can’t escape. We certainly hope that logic and rationale are part of the process we use when making decisions that affect important details of our lives (or the lives of others). But rational thinking—study after study has shown—is not the sole tool our brains and hearts employ when coming to conclusions.

Our System 1 brains make assumptions. System 2 can either help System 1 see some errors in those assumptions, or can create evidence to confirm those assumptions. Ultimately, to make life manageable, we settle with beliefs with which we find comfort (otherwise we would never be able to decide what shirt to wear before leaving the house). When a belief is formed, System 2 comes up with rational support to confirm that we have made the right decision—even though at least part of System 1’s conclusion is driven by emotion rather than logic. And yes, this includes the “beliefs” of atheists and agnostics. So to claim that Latter-day Saints use “emotion” when determining truth, is like claiming that Latter-day Saints are human.

All people apply extra-rational ingredients when forming their beliefs. For those who belief in the divine, at least a few ingredients include spiritual elements. Richard Hooker, a 16th century Anglican Theologian wrote that the sources of spiritual authority are Scriptures, Tradition, and Reason. Later writers described these three sources with the analogy of the legs of a three-legged stool—each leg is necessary to hold up the stool. We might modify this approach for LDS use with an analogy of a four-legged table. In Mormon thought the sources of spiritual authority would be Scripture, Modern Prophets, Personal Revelation, and Reason.

As truth-seekers we should make every effort to include all four of these ingredients into the spiritual and intellectual process that generates our individual beliefs. Utilizing all four factors helps us arrive at truth—it doesn’t guarantee we’ll arrive at ultimate truth because, once again, that’s not possible for mere mortals. We have a better chance, however, of arriving at truth if we apply all four ingredients compared to using only a few of the components.

Unfortunately, from my many years of experience helping those who have struggled with intellectual issues that have challenged faith, I’ve found that many Latter-Day Saints do not apply all four components to their approach of determining truth. Using one or two of the tools may serve some members well, but others members may end up with damaged testimonies when something shakes their faith.

From my personal perspective too many members lean unevenly on the legs of Scripture and Modern Prophets. Now admittedly, those are pretty big legs when we measure spiritual truth, but God has given us two more tools that we shouldn’t brush aside.

Several years ago my friend Ben McGuire pointed out one of the more useful lessons we learn from the story of Lehi and Nephi’s vision of the Tree of Life. Lehi saw the tree in a vision and shared the information with his family. Nephi wanted to experience the spiritual manifestation as well, so he turned to the Lord and experienced his own vision of the tree (and apparently saw some things that weren’t mentioned by Lehi).

When Nephi told Laman and Lemuel that he, like his father, has seen the Tree of Life vision his brothers complained that they didn’t understand the vision. Did you ask the Lord? Nephi asked his brothers.

“We have not,” they replied, “for the Lord maketh no such thing known unto us” (1 Nephi 15:9).

We believe that this Church is a church of revelation—not just revelation to prophets, but revelation to all members. Each person in this Church can receive personal revelation relevant to their sphere of responsibility. Prophets have stewardship over the entire world during their administration, stake presidents for their stake, bishops for their wards, parents for their homes, and each person for their own personal challenges.

In addition to personal revelation, I fear that we sometimes overlook Reason in our quest for finding truth. God gave us brains and expects us to use them. While we must certainly live, at times, by faith we don’t need to live by blind faith. I personally am utterly opposed to the idea that God is some sort of deceiver who makes the geological, archaeological, genetic, or other scientific evidences appear to support a view contrary to traditional assumptions. Truth is truth and if there is evidence that runs contrary to one of our beliefs, it could mean that more secular truth is still to come, but it could also mean that our belief is based on an unwarranted assumption rather than on an eternal truth.

For example, in 1963—more than a decade before black Latter-day Saints were allowed to receive the priesthood—the late LDS scholar Eugene England met with Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith (who would later become president of the Church) and discussed the belief that black people were less valiant in the premortal existence. Brother England recalled:

I got an appointment with him [Joseph Fielding Smith] and asked him directly if I must believe in the “pre-existence hypothesis” to have good Church standing. He replied, “Yes, because that is the teaching of the scriptures.” I asked him to show me the teaching in the scriptures, since I had not been able to see it there. President Smith patiently went through the sources with me, particularly the Pearl of Great Price, and then he said something quite remarkable: “No, you do not have to believe that Negroes are denied the priesthood because of the pre-existence. I have always assumed that because it was what I was taught, and it made sense, but you don’t have to believe it to be in good standing, because it is not definitely stated in the scriptures. And I have received no revelation on the matter.”ii

Assumptions drive our inferences about the things which we encounter. Sometimes they are right, sometimes they are wrong. We need to be careful that we don’t elevate our personal assumptions to the state of revelation, indisputable fact, or eternal truth. Faulty assumptions about what we should expect from prophets, scriptures, or even from God, can set us up for problems when these assumptions are not met. In such scenarios we may feel that prophets, the scriptures, or that God has failed rather than recognizing that we have built a house of beliefs on the sandy foundation of mistaken assumptions.

If we shore up our beliefs with the words of past and living prophets, personal revelation, and intellectual study and judgement, we will build a stronger foundation that should weather storms of spiritual disaffection.

i Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow (Macmillan, 2011). ii Eugene England, “Are All Alike Unto God? Prejudice Against Blacks and Women in Popular Mormon Theology,” Sunstone April 1990, 20.

Michael Ash has been a member of FairMormon for more than a decade and has been published in various print and e-publications including the “Ensign.” He’s the author of “Shaken Faith Syndrome: Strengthening One’s Testimony in the Face of Criticism and Doubt,” as well as “Of Faith and Reason: 80 Evidences Supporting the Prophet Joseph.”

Where are the “Official” Answers?

by

BF

Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn, Benjamin Franklin.

I love learning new information. It’s exciting to read that the remains of three ancient Viking settlements may have recently been found in Canada. I’m fascinated to read about revolutionary gene-editing technology that may, someday, be used to fix disease-causing mutations. I was blown away to read that NASA’s Mars Orbiter spacecraft appears to have discovered hydrated salt minerals on the planet which suggests the presence of water. It was a joy to read that a well-preserved daguerreotype (early type of photograph) of early LDS president Wilford Woodruff from the Nauvoo period showed up on EBay (and was purchased by my friend, LDS photo historian, Ron Fox).

Does the Church have official positions on these, and many more, topics in the news? That, of course, is a silly question. Why would the LDS Church have an official position on the authenticity of possible Viking settlements, the possible discovery of water on Mars, or an official position on the precise date when the photo of Wilford Woodruff was taken?

“How much do we really know about…?” and we can fill in the blank with nearly anything. How much do we really know about consciousness, multiverses, what’s in the oceans, what’s out in space, who were the first humans, or how the brain understands emotions? The list could go on and on. For the most part, we know a lot more about each of these topics today than we did ten years ago, but we will likely know a lot more in another decade again.

When it comes to gospel or doctrinal topics we tend to think that all prophets knew the same things about every spiritual matter. We assume that past prophets understood the Gospel and gospel doctrines precisely the same way that 21st century American Latter-day Saints understand these same topics.

While it’s certainly possible that at least a few things were (or are) universally understood by all past and current prophets, it’s not reasonable to assume that all spiritual perspectives have been understood the same through all ages. Scholarship tells us, for example, that the early Israelites had a polytheistic view of deity (belief in the existence of multiple Gods) while pure monotheism (belief in a single God) didn’t really emerge until about the 7th century B.C.

During Christ’s ministry new teachings were added as the law of Moses was fulfilled. When Joseph Smith came on the scene he restored lost teachings but added new revelations that were given for the modern world. After Joseph’s death even more progress was made. Some of Joseph’s teachings or practices were refined, some practices—such as the United Order and Plural Marriage—were discontinued (for reasons which have not been fully revealed).

The beauty of being a member of a living Church—a Church lead by revelation—is that we can expect, and hope for, changes. “…he that receiveth light,” we read in the Doctrine and Covenants, “and continueth in God, receiveth more light; and that light groweth brighter and brighter until the perfect day” (D&C 50:24). In a Church with revelation there is no “final word” when it comes to knowing the Gospel. Like secular education, there is always more to come.

So what does this have to do with “official” answers? Let me explain: In the more than two decades that I’ve conversed with struggling members or former members as they’ve navigated challenging issues I have frequently heard the complaint that people such as myself are simply amateur (or “professional”) apologists (an “apologist” is someone who defends a belief) and therefore my thoughts on the topics can be dismissed. They want “official” answers on troubling issues.

The topics which some members find troubling include questions about the relationship between the Book of Abraham as recorded in our scriptures and the Egyptian characters on the Joseph Smith Papyri; the relationship between what we read in the Book of Mormon and what archaeologists tell us about the ancient New World; the relationship between the scriptural stories of Adam and Eve and what scientists tell us about organic evolution; the relationship between the nineteenth-century frontier American attitudes regarding folk magic, and Joseph Smith’s methods for translating the Book of Mormon plates; the difference between Joseph’s understanding of his First Vision as a young man, and his increased understanding of the experience as a seasoned prophet; the relationship between LDS temple symbols and Masonic symbols of Joseph Smith’s day; the relationship between Joseph’s restoration of the practice of plural marriage, and man-made practices that confound morality; the relationship between early nineteenth-century racial beliefs, and the priesthood ban for black members; the relationship between the spirit, the brain, and gender attraction, and traditional man-woman marriage.

Critics, and some members, think that the Church should have official responses or answers for all of these troubling issues—or for any troubling issue that may rise upon future reflection, with new discoveries, or during changes in human-relationship dynamics. Such wishful desires, however, are naïve and unrealistic.

First, the overwhelming majority of these issues deal with academic interpretations of data and do not deal with doctrinal problems. For example, the Church teaches that Lehi, Nephi, and their small group of families traveled by boat from the Old World to the New World, practiced their religion, fought with those who challenged their way of life, and wrote about these encounters on metal plates. The official teaching of the Church is that the Book of Mormon is the Word of God. The Lord has not revealed any of the historical details about the Book of Mormon people or their lands.

Now we might wish that the Lord would reveal some of the historical peculiarities about the Book of Mormon peoples; we might also wish that the Lord would reveal more details about the timing of the Second Coming or if the deceased can ever progress from one heavenly kingdom to another. We might wish that the Lord would reveal if and when the Holy Ghost will ever receive a body, or how intelligences were made into spirit children. We might wish a lot of things, but the Lord reveals those things which are necessary to guide us to become like Christ and return to the Heavenly Family.

If there is no revelation that locates the site of Lehi’s landing in the New World, if there is no revelation which tells us that the entire pre-Jaredite New World was void of all other human inhabitants, if there is no revelation which tells us the precise chemical composition of the Book of Mormon plates, then the answers cannot be found in official revelatory declarations by Church prophets—they can only be found through academic examination and discourse.

If we look at the other “troubling” issues we find the same contingency. We believe that the Book of Abraham contains the Word of God, but we have no revelation how (or by whom) the Abrahamic stories—as revealed to Joseph—were first recorded. We have no revelation as to the nature of any connection that exists between the Joseph Smith Papyri and the revealed text in our scriptures.

While we know that the Book of Mormon and other modern scripture were revealed to Joseph by the Power of God, we have no revelation that tells us how Joseph’s seer stone worked as a tool to receive scriptural revelations.

While we know that Joseph restored the practice of plural marriage, we have no revelation as to how the practice was fully implemented in Joseph’s day or how this practice interplays with family dynamics in the hereafter.

While we know from revelation that God created the Earth and humankind, we do not have revelation which tells us the how long the process took or what methods God employed.

We know from Joseph’s own testimony that God and Christ visited him in a grove of trees in answer to Joseph’s pleas for spiritual help. We have no revelation that tells us precisely how Joseph was able to see divine beings while he, himself, remained in the flesh. And we have no revelation which tells us what Joseph understood about God or the Gospel when he left the grove of trees or the precise timeline in which each of his additional gospel insights were revealed to his own mind.

While black members of the Church were indisputably denied the priesthood from some point in Brigham Young’s day until 1978, we have no revelation as to why Brigham implemented the practice or even if his move to halt the practice was based on personal feelings, environmental pressures, or cultural proclivities.

While the issue of same-gender attraction has impelled the Church to make official responses addressing the earthly practice of temple marriages and the problem of sexual interactions outside of the bonds of marriage, we have no revelation telling us why a number of our faithful brothers and sisters are attracted to the same gender or how such attractions interplay with family dynamics in the hereafter.

While it’s always possible that we, in mortality, may receive revelation on these and other troubling topics, the fact is that the Lord does not give us answers to everything. Why? Some of His reasons may not be discoverable through human intellect and logic. We must also remember that mortality is a testing ground where we are required to figure things out on our own. Failure and getting things wrong is part of the process of figuring things out. Dead ends, false starts, and wrong turns are all part of life’s experience and all part of what eventually makes righteous humanity move forward. Our personal accountability lies not so much in the mishaps and stumbles, but rather in the direction we are moving and if that direction is helping us become more like Christ.

So in the absence of revelatory answers we have no choice but to turn to academic answers. Some of those answers could be right, and some could be wrong. Some may be spot on, and some may be in the general area of “correct,” but could use additional tweaking.  And when we must turn to academic answers the playing field is open to all those who would share their thoughts. There are experts with degrees in archaeology, anthropology, genetics, and history—and they can all add their thoughts and ideas to the discussion—but we must not overlook the non-experts. As Hugh Nibley said, this is the Day of the Amateur,[i] and a wide array of voices have contributed to the discussions.

The Brethren are aware that many of these topics have proven to be stumbling blocks for testimonies. Fully mindful that we seek learning “by study and also by faith” (D&C 88:118), the Church produced nearly a dozen academic essays which address some of these topics. Elder Ballard, in a recent address to those involved in the Church Education System, strongly recommended that teachers study these essays so that they would have answers for students who struggle with questions.[ii]

The fact that these essays are posted on the official Church website at LDS.org suggests that these are “official” answers by the Church and should silence those critics who claim otherwise. But it’s important that we go beyond the one-dimensional label of “official” as something posted on LDS.org. Some people equate “official” with “doctrinal,” and in human language, words can mean more than one thing. Sometimes an official statement from the Church constitutes official doctrine; sometimes an official statement characterizes the current position as agreed upon by leaders of the Church as a human-administered organization.

The essays satisfy the requirement for “official” answers but it’s important to understand that they do not represent official LDS doctrine. They are academic examinations of the issues. Academic answers can change—they can be right, they can be wrong, or they may need to be modified upon the discovery of additional information.

Which brings us back full circle to the beginning of this post…. Learning will continue. There is, for mortals, no end to what we might learn. More information—either by revelatory or secular means—will continue to come. Anything that is “official” today can be updated with additional academic or spiritual inspiration.

Our Church doesn’t have creeds (authoritative formulas or statements of religious beliefs). The closest thing we have is the Thirteen Articles of Faith which outline some of the basic tenets of our faith. As Article 9 states, however, “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.”

Joseph said that he didn’t like creeds because they set limits. “Hitherto shalt thou come, and no further,” said Joseph, quoting Job 38:11.  A Church which believes in continuing revelation automatically believes that what is “official” today may not be “official” tomorrow. As members of a living Church we should rejoice is knowing that while the Lord is in charge, he allows us our humanity. He doesn’t force feed us with truth, but he allows us to discover truth. As LDS scientist Henry Eyring once wrote: “In the long run, the truth is its own most powerful advocate. The Lord uses imperfect people. He often allows their errors to stand uncorrected. He may have a purpose in doing so, such as to teach us that religious truth comes forth ‘line upon line, precept upon precept’ in a process of sifting and winnowing similar to the one I know so well in science.”[iii]

Insisting on official answer answers for everything is a cheap and easy approach that superficially appears to provide comfort, but is really nothing more than an information inhibitor. The Gospel is not a Wikipedia where we can find the final answer to every intellectual or spiritual issue that might pop up in our lives. The Gospel is a more like a co-operative school where we help others while helping ourselves to become—intellectually, spiritually, and physically—like our Father in Heaven. Turning to the back of the book for every answer is like looking up the answer for a math test; it may provide the correct solution, but doesn’t teach us how to do the math.

The other problem with pat answers is that too many people fall into the trap of thinking that the answer book is finished, closed, and that the answers can’t change or be updated.

Thou fool, that shall say: A Bible, we have got a Bible, and we need no more Bible…. Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word? …And because that I have spoken one word ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my work is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that time henceforth and forever. (2 Ne. 29: 6-9).

As truth seekers we can’t be fully content in limiting our learning with the hopes of official answers for every question. Instead, we will find our hearts and minds contented by putting our faith in God that He has more light yet to share, by trusting God that there are always answers to difficult issues even if we don’t necessarily see them, and by recognizing that, in the words of Hugh B. Brown, “revelation does not come only through the prophet of God nor only directly from heaven in visions or dreams. Revelation may come in the laboratory, out of the test tube, out of the thinking mind and the inquiring soul, out of search and research and prayer and inspiration.”[iv]

[i] Hugh W. Nibley, “The Day of the Amateur,” Ensign January 1971 at https://www.lds.org/new-era/1971/01/the-day-of-the-amateur?lang=eng, (accessed 28 April 2016).

[ii] M. Russell Ballard, “The Opportunities and Responsibilities of CES Teachers in the 21st Century,” at https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/evening-with-a-general-authority/2016/02/the-opportunities-and-responsibilities-of-ces-teachers-in-the-21st-century?lang=eng (accessed 29 April 2016).

[iii] Henry Eyring, Reflections of a Scientist (SLC: Deseret Book, 1983), 47,

[iv] Hugh B. Brown, The Abundant Life (Salt Lake City, UT:  Bookcraft, 1965), 87-88.

Michael Ash has been a member of FairMormon for more than a decade and has been published in various print and e-publications including the “Ensign.” He’s the author of “Shaken Faith Syndrome: Strengthening One’s Testimony in the Face of Criticism and Doubt,” as well as “Of Faith and Reason: 80 Evidences Supporting the Prophet Joseph.”

 

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Resolving the Conflict Between Science and Religion

by

MAThe following is part of a fictional dialogue between Shane and Doug, two former missionary companions many years after their missions. Shane writes to his friend Doug who has posted comments about his on-going faith crisis on Facebook. The characters are fictionalized composites of members who have faced these same dilemmas but the issues are based on very real problems which have caused some to stumble. Likewise, the responding arguments are based on the author’s own personal engagement with these same concerns as well as his discussion of these issues with other members who have struggled. (By Michael R. Ash, author of Shaken Faith Syndrome: Strengthening One’s Testimony in the Face of Criticism and Doubt,and Of Faith and Reason: 80 Evidences Supporting the Prophet Joseph Smith, and Director of Media Products for FairMormon.)

Dear Doug,

I’m glad you found value in my last letter discussing DNA and the Book of Mormon. I’m not sure, however, if you’ve accurately understood my position on the science vs. religion debate. So in this letter I hope to clarify my perspective.

I believe that conflict between science and religion really comes down to a conflict between the known and the unknown. LDS scientist Henry Eyring (the late father of current apostle Henry B. Eyring) explained: “Is there any conflict between science and religion? There is no conflict in the mind of God, but often there is conflict in the minds of men.”[i]

Secular atheists claim that there is only the natural; what we call “supernatural” is simply the point where we have yet to fully explain the natural mechanics of the event or cause. Eventually, they argue, all of the “gaps” in such mysteries disappear and are replaced with naturalexplanations.

I actually sort of agree, but would phrase it a bit differently. God said, “all things unto me are spiritual” (D&C 29:34). Obviously, this doesn’t mean that your chair is simply spirit; what I believe it means is that everything—and that means everything—is part of a divine essence. So from God’s advanced perspective, all things are naturally spiritual. Natural and spiritual are simply different perspectives and descriptions of the same thing. As Brigham Young explained, “…God is a scientific character… He lives by science or strict law….”[ii]

Truth is truth. Joseph Smith once said: “One of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may.”[iii]

There is not spiritual truth or natural truth, there is only truth. The “gaps” that we fill with natural explanations are all part of God’s one truth. The problem, of course, is man’s arrogance in thinking that we have such great scientific vision that those things which believers call “spiritual” cannot be part of the same natural law.

While science is constantly advancing in our understanding of the world and cosmos, comparing what we know to what we don’t know is like claiming that a grain of sand understands the planet Earth because all it can see is beach. Science grapples with understanding the intricacies of the mind, the body, gravity, dark matter, multiverses, and countless aspects of what makes the universe tick. Knowledge is limited but progress is constantly being made.

Science is able to discover those parts of the God’s natural/supernatural world through tools which can measure some of those things which appear to have a physical presence. Revelation can discover those parts of God’s natural/supernatural world through tools which can glimpse some (but relatively few) of those things which do not have a physical presence.

Both science and revelation are able to lead us to truth. Both are liable to make errors because they utilize imperfect tools in the hands of imperfect humans. But both, combined, eventually will self-correct and teach us more about God’s natural/supernatural world.

We Latter-day Saints tend to focus on the feelings of the “heart” when determining God’s truth. We cannot test, with any currently known secular tools, if God exists, if Jesus is the Christ, or if Joseph Smith saw the Father and Son in a vision.

It’s all well and good to recognize the power of the heart in receiving testimony on life’s most important questions, but the appreciation for the “heart” should not come with an exclusion for the appreciation of the “brain.” God gave us both, and all of our thoughts (and the way our bodies react to spiritual manifestations) must be filtered through our brains.

In the ancient world people did not understand the purpose of the brain. They believed that emotions, feelings, spiritual impressions, and thoughts all came from the heart. We find numerous passages in the scriptures which reflect this ancient perspective. Following are just a few examples.

“Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heartmay be forgiven thee,” (Acts 8:22, emphasis added).

“And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?” (Luke 24:38).

“And he said unto them: Behold, I, Samuel, a Lamanite, do speak the words of the Lord which he doth put into my heart; and behold he hath put it into my heart to say unto this people that the sword of justice hangeth over this people,” (Helaman 13:5).

The oft-quoted verse from Moroni expresses this ancient mindset: “Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would …ponder it in your hearts” (Moroni 10:3).

We ponder in our minds, not in our hearts. We may feel the testimony (in part) in our hearts, but the thought process goes on in the brain.

When Oliver Cowdery tried the translate the Book of Mormon the Lord told him that the mind was part of the process: “But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right” (D&C 9:8). As President Uchtdorf explained:

When we talk about testimony, we refer to feelings of our heart and mind rather than an accumulation of logical, sterile facts. It is a gift of the Spirit, a witness from the Holy Ghost that certain concepts are true.[iv]

I think that too often some Latter-day Saints tend to brush off science and scholarship as unreliable (the “arm of flesh”) when most of what drives our modern twenty-first century lives comes as the result of the power of that same science and scholarship.

In our search for truth we should embrace science and scholarship. Logic and historical precedence give us good reason why we shouldn’t demand the acceptance of all current points of scientific knowledge as final—we know that science can, has, and will make mistakes. Recognizing that mistakes have been made (and will undoubtedly be made again) is no excuse, however, to simply reject science when it conflicts with our interpretations of religious issues. Science is self-correcting and eventually truths are discovered.

Anti-science and anti-scholarship positions are not the paths to discovering truth and therefore are not, I believe, the way the Lord would want us to approach our quest for learning. The Lord suggested that we are to be “instructed more perfectly in theory, in principle, in doctrine”

“…Of things both in heaven and in the earth, and under the earth [geology, archaeology?]; things which have been [history], things which are [current events], things which must shortly come to pass [science]; things which are at home [local politics, culture, history?], things which are abroad [foreign politics, cultures, history?]; the wars and the perplexities of the nations, and the judgments which are on the land; and a knowledge also of countries and of kingdoms” (D&C 88:79).

Anti-science and anti-scholarship positions can damage us both physically as well as spiritually. It is an unfortunate fact, for example, that at least a few Latter-day Saints have joined with the anti-vaccination movement despite overwhelming scientific support for the benefit of vaccinations as well as an absence of scientific evidence supporting the myth that vaccinations cause autism. Those members who reject the science on the issue, also reject Church counsel which recommends that children should be vaccinated.[v]

Spiritual stumbling blocks can also be constructed of anti-intellectual bricks. The DNA topic we discussed earlier is a good example. For those members who reject science, which tells us that the Americas were populated 15,000 years ago (and that the Lehites would have been a small incursion into this larger population), the DNA argument can damage faith. For those who accept the anthropological and archaeological evidences, as well as modern DNA science, the basic premise of the Book of Mormon remains unscathed.

In closing this far-too-lengthy letter, I think it’s significant to recognize that all truth works line upon line and—if followed properly—becomes self-correcting. This means that both science and religious truths will run into dead-ends, or will make wrong turns. Prophets do not get a special handbook from God that contains the answers to all questions. Their revelation (like ours) comes typically by way of answers to prayers and then may come only piecemeal or through a glass darkly (1 Corin. 13:12).

We must be willing to shift or modify our religious paradigms to absorb the truths of science. Ourbasic spiritual foundation is immutable and can only be known through the spirit. God lives, Jesus is the Christ and atoned for our sins, and the Gospel has been restored and is led by modern-day prophets who hold keys to sacred covenants.

Most of the rest of the stuff—yes, even the religious stuff—is ancillary and can be better understood through the application of a combination of both spiritual and secular learning. Science (to use a general description designating the mass of intellectual insights) has taught me at least two very important points regarding my approach to religious beliefs:

1) There are secular evidences which support belief. The more we learn, the more convinced I am that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God and that the Book of Mormon is a translation of an authentic ancient text.

2) I, like every other human, have often assumed too much. As secular studies give us a clearer picture about the world and history of mankind, I have frequently needed to adjust my worldviews about ancient scripture and how God works with and through His children and through the physical laws which govern our planet.

While some members have resisted modifying their paradigms, or have painfully jettisoned false assumptions (and, at times, their testimonies), I find such modifications not only to be rewarding, but exciting. The more I know, the more I realize how much I don’t know. Each new bit of knowledge, however, as well as each new modification or liberation from a faulty assumption, increases my appreciation for God’s creations and how He accomplishes His purposes through the weakness of humanity.

If you like, we can discuss some of these examples in subsequent letters.

Your friend,
Shane

Notes

[i] Henry Eyring, Reflections of a Scientist (SLC: Deseret Book, 1983), 2.

[ii] Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses (13 Nov. 1870), 13:302.

[iii] Joseph Smith, quoted in History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2nd ed. (SLC: Deseret News Press, 1949), 5:499.

[iv] Dieter F. Uchtdorf, “The Power of Personal Testimony,” https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2006/10/the-power-of-a-personal-testimony?lang=eng

[v] See, for example, the Church’s official website here:https://www.lds.org/church/news/church-makes-immunizations-an-official-initiative-provides-social-mobilization as well an official Church video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myA2SJha7G0&feature=youtu.be. See also non-official sites which discuss official Church quotes such as the one here: http://www.ldsliving.com/Church-Leaders-on-Child-Immunization/s/78000 and http://www.mormonpress.com/mormon_vaccination.

Bamboozled by the “CES Letter”

by

MA

Bamboozled by the “CES Letter” (free download)

In April 2013 Jeremy T. Runnells published a pdf booklet entitled, “Letter to a CES Director.” This booklet, which is now typically referred to as the “CES Letter,” catalogues Runnells’ concerns and reasons why he left The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Runnells has worked hard to make his booklet available to people everywhere (and in several languages) and has, unfortunately, been the agent for leading at least a few other believers out of Mormonism.

Sadly, most of those who have been bamboozled by the “CES Letter“ are Latter-day Saints who were blind-sided by scholarly-sounding interpretations of challenging data. In my opinion, however, the “CES Letter’s” caricature of Mormonism is fundamentally flawed and does not accurately represent either Mormonism or the only logical interpretations of the data.

Unfortunately, the reason the CES Letter has enjoyed any success is that most Latter-day Saints have never been exposed to some of the more complex matters in early Mormon history. On average, the typical Latter-day Saint has never needed to think outside of the box on Mormon-related philosophical, historical, or scholarly issues.

Also available for purchase in paperback edition

“Bamboozled by the ‘CES Letter'” explains, with a bit of humor, why these complex issues need not kill a testimony. Interpretation matters. A growing number of laymembers as well as educated Mormon scholars, are fully aware of the complex issues but continue strong in their faith because they recognize that there are logical interpretations which can be integrated with their belief in Mormonism.

Bamboozled by the “CES Letter” (free download)

Letters to a Former Missionary Companion – Letter 6

by

MAThe following series of articles is a fictional dialogue between Shane and Doug, two former missionary companions many years after their missions. Shane writes to his friend Doug who has posted comments about his on-going faith crisis on Facebook. The characters are fictionalized composites of members who have faced these same dilemmas but the issues are based on very real problems which have caused some to stumble. Likewise, the responding arguments are based on the author’s own personal engagement with these same concerns as well as his discussion of these issues with other members who have struggled. (By Michael R. Ash, author of Shaken Faith Syndrome: Strengthening One’s Testimony in the Face of Criticism and Doubt, and Of Faith and Reason: 80 Evidences Supporting the Prophet Joseph Smith, and Director of Media Products for FairMormon.)

Dear Doug,

I’m glad to hear that you are reading the Book of Mormon again. I hope you are reading it with a spirit of seeking the truth, not just to see if you can find “problems.” People tend to find what they are searching for.

Let’s begin this discussion with your concerns about the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated.

Like virtually every Mormon, I was taught that Joseph Smith translated the golden plates by way of the Urim and Thummim—a holy relic that looked like spectacles and were somehow attached to a breastplate. The Urim and Thummim, I was told, were among the items Moroni buried in the box containing the golden plates.

The truth is, however, that the Book of Mormon doesn’t refer to the translating tool as the “Urim and Thummim.” The Book of Mormon calls them the “Interpreters” (Mosiah 8:13). Some early Latter-day Saints began referring to the Interpreters as the “Urim and Thummim”—a reference to a device in the Old Testament that was associated with the High Priest’s breastplate and used for divination or for receiving answers from God (see Exodus 28:30). The early Saints didn’t think that the Nephite Interpreters were the Urim and Thummim mentioned in the Bible but were another Urim and Thummim given for translating the plates.

When I was a fairly young man I read several LDS publications about Joseph Smith’s history—all books that could be found at Deseret Book or in the Institute Library. I quickly learned that Joseph sometimes used a seer stone to translate the Book of Mormon. The fact was in no way hidden from members who were interested in reading Church history. During my own faith crisis, however, there were two things that surprised and bothered about the translation process. First was the fact that Joseph put the stone in a hat, and peered into the hat while translating. The second troubling issue (for me) was that Joseph obviously believed in “magical” divining by way of seer stones. I had never heard of either of these two points before, and I must admit that I was initially shaken by the disclosure.

Unfortunately, my image of the translation process was like that of the typical member—it was based on what I had seen in Church magazines and comments from Sunday school teachers rather than from a critical examination of the historical evidence. Most artists, however, are not historians and occasionally produce artwork that is based on misassumptions. Some wonderful LDS artwork, for example, depicts Caucasian-looking Nephites with romance-novel cover-model physiques wielding broadswords and Viking-like helmets—none of which fits the actual images that could be created for how early American warriors would have looked or the weapons they would have utilized.

The average painting of the Savior typically falls victim to similar problems with features generally based on the cultural or theological perspectives of the artist rather than on historical accuracy. Da Vinci’s “Last Supper,” for example, depicts European-looking men sitting at a regular table instead of Middle Eastern men reclining at the low tables of Jesus’ day. An Italian Renaissance portrait of Mary and the baby Jesus has a Renaissance castle and town in the background, and the 1569 “Census of Bethlehem” by a Belgian artist depicts snow and ice-skaters in what appears to be a Renaissance Belgium village.

The truth is that the Interpreters didn’t come with instructions and Joseph was apparently left on his own as to how to use them. This is when his cultural background came in handy. In Joseph Smith’s day many of the frontiersmen in his vicinity believed that divining rods and seer stones could be used to find water, lost objects, and treasures. The ability to divine was generally considered to be a God-given gift and was practiced by devoutly religious men and women.

Long prior to acquiring the plates the young Joseph Smith was a believer in divination. In fact, he and his friends and family believed that he had the God-given gift to find lost objects by way of a seer stone. Seer stones were thought to be special stones in which one could see the location of the object for which one was divining. The seer stones were related to crystal balls or the practice of looking into pools of water or mirrors to divine information (such as the Queen’s magic mirror in the Snow White tale).

I already knew—but hadn’t made the connection until I began learning about Joseph’s translation process—that some people in Joseph’s day used divining stones. I recalled reading Joseph’s history by his mother Lucy Mack Smith (a book I read when I was about 16). In that book Lucy told about a company of men who were trying to get the plates from Joseph and brought a woman who could find things by looking into a green rock. She apparently came within inches of finding the plates!

While this seems strange in modern times, in Joseph’s day many intelligent, educated, and religious people believed that such real powers existed in the forces of nature. Well into the nineteenth-century, for instance, a number of people believed in alchemy—the belief that baser metals could be turned into gold. Some of New England’s practicing alchemists were graduates from Yale and Harvard and one alchemist was the Chief Justice of Massachusetts.

In order to see inside of the stone, it was sometimes placed between one’s eye and the flicker of a candle, or into something dark—such as an upside down hat—to shield out all light. It was believed that in such an environment a seer (someone who “sees”) could stare into the stone for the information one was seeking.

When Joseph first acquired the Nephite Interpreters he also tried placing them into a hat to shield the light. Although he apparently managed to translate the 116 lost pages by this method he complained that he had a hard time fitting the spectacles into the hat and that the two lenses were set too far apart—and were apparently made for someone with a broader face. It gave him eyestrain when he stared into the lenses.

After Joseph lost the first 116 pages, the Interpreters and his gift to translate were temporarily taken away. Eventually, after repenting, Joseph’s gift was returned but instead of using the Nephite Interpreters Joseph was allowed to use his seer stone to finish the translating process. In Joseph’s “language” the seer stone had the same properties as the Interpreters and was therefore also a Urim and Thummin. So when many early records speak of Joseph translating by way of the Urim and Thummim they are generally referring to the seer stone and not the Interpreters. Unfortunately, through time, members have forgotten about the seer stone (as divination become less accepted by society) and eventually most members assumed that the only Urim and Thummim Joseph used was the Interpreters.

The seer stone made the translating process much easier and we read that Joseph would sit for hours, his face in the hat—to obscure the light—while he saw the English translation of the Book of Mormon text that he dictated to his scribes.

The more I thought about it, the less the translation process bothered me. I already believed that Joseph Smith translated by way of a sacred “rock”—the Urim and Thummim—why would it seem so odd that God gave Joseph the power to translated with a “rock” from his own culture—the “seer stone”? And in hindsight, I already knew that other people in Joseph’s vicinity used seer stones in “magical” ways. If Joseph and the people of his day believed that you could see other-worldly things in special rocks, why couldn’t God use that cultural belief as a focal point for Joseph to receive revelation regarding the content of the Book of Mormon? How Joseph translated the plates was really unimportant compared to what he gave us in that translation.

Your friend,

Shane

Letters to a Former Missionary Companion – Letter 5

Letters to a Former Missionary Companion – Letter 4

Letters to a Former Missionary Companion – Letter 3

Letters to a Former Missionary Companion – Letter 2

Letters to a Former Missionary Companion