Discounted tickets are still available for the 2013 FAIR Conference until May 31. For more information and to purchase tickets, visit this page. This short video clip also provides more information: FAIR Conference video clip
Blog
Mormon FAIR-Cast 141: Was the Book of Mormon Set in Heartland America?
Podcast: Download (8.9MB)
Subscribe: RSS
Where did the events of the Book of Mormon take place? What evidence is there that the events took place in Mesoamerica? What evidence is there that these events did not take place in the heartland of the United States? In this episode of Religion Today, which originally aired on KSL Radio on October 28, 2012, Martin Tanner discusses these questions.
This recording was used by permission of KSL Radio and does not necessarily represent the views of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or of FAIR. (Listeners will note that the first part of this recording is missing.)
Help Thou Mine Unbelief
In the Sunday afternoon session of General Conference, Elder Holland (hereafter “EH”) gave an address with the title “Lord, I Believe.” He sets the stage by recounting the story of the father of an afflicted child, desperate for whatever help might be afforded. The disciples were not able to provide the needed blessing. The father then appealed to Jesus with last-resort desperation:
“If thou canst do any thing, have compassion on us, and help us.
Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.
And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.”
EH tells us that the man’s initial conviction, by his own admission, is limited, but he has an urgent, emphatic desire on behalf of his only child. And we are then told that that is good enough for a beginning.
EH astutely notes the plural pronouns the father uses in his plea: “have compassion on us, and help us.” The help needed was not for the child alone, but for the father himself as well. And in response to this new and still partial faith, Jesus heals the boy.
At this point EH states that he is addressing the youth of the Church, but then he clarifies that he is including under that rubric those young in age, young in years of membership or young in faith, which one way or another probably includes most of us.
He then offers a series of observations. Observation No. 1: Hold fast the ground already won. He observes how the father asserts his strength first, and only then acknowledges his limitation. “Hold fast to what you already know and stand strong until additional knowledge comes.”
Observation No. 2: Lead with Your Faith. Do not start your quest for faith by saying how much you do not have, leading as it were with your “unbelief.” In an image that is sure to become a classic, EH tells us “That is like trying to stuff a turkey through the beak!” He makes clear that he is not asking us to pretend to faith we do not have, but he is asking us to be true to the faith we do have. “Sometimes we act as if an honest declaration of doubt is a higher manifestation of moral courage than is an honest declaration of faith.” We should be as candid about our questions as we need to be; life is full of such questions on one subject or another, but don’t let those questions stand in the way of faith working its miracle.
A third observation (introduced by “Furthermore“) is that we need to realize that we have more faith than we may think if we will but pay attention to the fruits we experience from living the Gospel.
Don’t Freak Out! Well, that’s my way of saying it. EH says “don’t hyperventilate if from time to time issues arise that need to be examined, understood, and resolved.” They do and we will. “In this Church what we know will always trump what we do not know. And remember in this telestial world everyone is to walk by faith.”
So, EH observes, we need to be patient with human frailty, both our own and that of others. “Except in the case of his only perfect Begotten Son, imperfect people are all God has ever had to work with since time began.”
Last Observation: Ask for help. When doubt or difficulty comes, do not be afraid to ask for help. If we seek it as honestly and humbly as that father did, we can get it.
Know v. Believe. EH then tells the story of a 14-year old boy who recently said to him, a little hesitantly, “Brother Holland, I can’t say yet that I know the Church is true, but I believe it is.” EH then hugged that boy until his eyes bulged out. EH explained that “belief” is a precious word, and an even more precious act, and he need never apologize for “only believing.” Christ himself said, “Be not afraid, only believe,” a phrase that sent GBH into the mission field. Our AoF each begin with “We believe…” EH told the boy how proud he was of him for the honesty of his quest.
Then, with the advantage of an additional 60 years since he too was a newly believing 14-year old, he went on to tell some things he knows, and conveyed an Apostolic testimony, finally inviting us, if our faith is ever tested in this or any season, to lean on his.
“Hang on. Hope on. Honestly acknowledge your concerns but first fan the flame of your faith, because all things are possible to them that believe.”
So in summary:
- Hold fast to the ground already won.
- Lead with your faith.
- Upon reflection, you may realize that you have more faith than you thought.
- Don’t freak out. BREATHE!
- Ask for help.
- If you have to, lean on his faith.
I was particularly pleased to see EH’s allowance and even encouragement for framing one’s testimony in the language of faith (“I believe, I trust, I have faith that”) in contrast with the language of absolute assurance (“I know”), since my own practice has long been the former and not the latter. That may mean that I’m closer to that 14-year old boy than to an EH, but I can live with that.
Cross posted from By Common Consent
4th Watch 5: The theology of John & Jacobus
Podcast: Download (15.9MB)
Subscribe: RSS
The topic of predestination has been debated from the days of the early Church fathers and continues to energize gospel discussions regarding the level of responsibility and personal accountability for our behavior. In this podcast the teachings of John Calvin and Jacobus Arminius, two of the most prominent theologians of the protestant reformation, are compared to the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
Even the Very Elect Can be Deceived
In my last installment I said that I would discuss some of the ways that fundamentalist thinking can unknowingly create stumbling blocks to our testimony. Before I get to that, however, I need to point out some important considerations about those who might be vulnerable to testimony damage.
It is significant that we ask: Who are those members who could potentially fall away because of hostile “intellectual” arguments? The answer is: all of us. We are told that in the last days “the very elect” (Matt. 24:24)—even the “elect according to the covenant” (JST Matt. 1:24)—could be deceived by “false Christs” and “false prophets.”
When we think of false Christs and false prophets we may envision lunatics who claim to be Jesus or perhaps radical leaders who would try to draw us into a faith of their own making. A false Christ or false prophet, however, would refer to anyone (religious or secular) who falsely claims the power and/or knowledge that leads to ultimate happiness and answers man’s greatest questions: Where did we come from? Why are we here? Where are we going?
Basically, any belief system that attempts to lead us down a path of thinking or behavior that draws us away from returning to Heavenly Father would count as a false Christ or false prophet. It is important therefore to note that we are told that such false teachings would even deceive the “very elect” and even those who made “covenants.”
History relates the tragic stories of other “elect” who lost their way—including one third of our pre-mortal brothers and sisters, Cain, Laman and Lemuel, Judas, the Book of Mormon Witnesses (although two returned), Sidney Rigdon (who, with Joseph, saw the Savior), and others. It should become apparent that all of us need to be on guard. Having a testimony now, or having had spiritual experiences in the past, doesn’t guarantee safety.
According to a 2001 informal poll of over 400 former members of the Church,[i] nearly two-thirds of the respondents had been active church members for at least 20 years, 58% had been married in the temple, and 59% had served missions. Former-members, of whom I am aware, include Relief Society Presidents, as well as Elder’s Quorum presidents, Bishops, and even a Mission President. A large percentage of former members undoubtedly had real testimonies and were active in their wards.
In the dream given to Lehi and Nephi they saw that many who had already “commenced” on the path to the tree of life “did lose their way” because of the mists of darkness (1 Ne. 8:23). An iron rod ran alongside the path to the tree and those who grabbed on to it were able to stay on the path even when blinded by the dark mists. Nephi saw that this iron rod represented the word of God (1 Ne. 11:25).
Those who stayed on the path, held on to the rod, and finally made it to the tree (the “love of God” [11:25]) and tasted of its fruit were not completely safe, however. Lehi saw that some of those who tasted the fruit did “cast their eyes about as if they were ashamed” (8:25). Why were they ashamed? They were scoffed at by those in the great and spacious building on the other side of the river (11:26-28). Nephi saw that his building represented “the world and the wisdom thereof” as well as the “pride of the world” (11: 35-36).
Some of the people who had traversed the long path, held on to the word of God, managed to stay on the path in spite of the mists of darkness, and finally tasted the fruit of God’s everlasting love, still lost focus of the power of goodness of God’s love (perhaps even looked to see if there was something better [“cast their eyes about”]) because of the “wisdom” of the world.
I’ve seen this happen myself. Members who have real testimonies, who are active in the Church, who not only hold leadership callings, but devote their times and talents to the Lord, who pray, pay tithing, hold family evenings, and live the commandments—I’ve seen them lose focus on their spiritual experiences because they discover something (or several things) that contradict their assumptions of non-doctrinal issues (although they may not realize that their concerns typically center on non-doctrinal issues).
Unless they recognize that their paradigms about those issues are either faulty, naïve, or incomplete, they may suddenly doubt their spiritual experiences and question (and often jettison) any witnesses they had previously received from the Holy Spirit.
The wisdom and pride of the critics in the world tells us that there is no such thing as spiritual experiences—that all such feelings are nothing more than emotions driven byconfirmation bias (this will be discussed in greater detail in later installments). Critics argue that not only are such sources unreliable but they give contradictory answers to different people throughout the world (another topic to be addressed later). Only science, reason, and intellect, they tell us, are valuable in determining truth.
While I’m a big fan of truth as acquired from science and I believe that there are many scientific evidences that support belief, it is not possible to know, or fully deny, the existence of God through scientific means alone.
The best two medicines with which we can inoculate our testimonies are: A) The recognition that “All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it” (D&C 93:30). In other words spiritual things are spiritually discerned. We can never know if God exists, that Jesus is the Christ, or that Joseph Smith beheld them both in his First Vision without tapping into the spiritual realm; and B) Many of our paradigms and assumptions about the intellectual aspects involving the scriptures, prophecy, and the nature of prophets, are often sophomoric. As Paul said: “When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things” (1 Corin. 13:11).
As we will discuss next time, it’s not childish to have different opinions on matters of non-doctrinal issues, but it is potentially dangerous to one’s testimony to not to recognize that there are differing opinions and approaches to many LDS topics, or to ascribe to those opinions the weight of doctrine.
_________________________________
[i] http://www.misterpoll.com/polls/16415/results
This article also appeared in Meridian Magazine.
Mormon FAIR-Cast 139: The Book of Abraham and the Prophetic Power of Joseph Smith
Podcast: Download (9.1MB)
Subscribe: RSS
Now that we have some of the papyrus that was in the possession of Joseph Smith when he translated the Book of Abraham, can it be demonstrated that Joseph Smith is a fraud? In this episode of Religion Today, which originally aired on KSL Radio on January 27, 2013, Martin Tanner responds to this question and discusses some of the ways in which the Book of Abraham actually provides evidence of the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith.
This recording was used by permission of KSL Radio and does not necessarily represent the views of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or of FAIR.
4th Watch 3: Salvation–Are Mormons Saved?
Podcast: Download (13.5MB)
Subscribe: RSS
In this podcast, Brother Scarisbrick illustrates the various stages of life and how our choices determine what we receive in the life to come from an LDS perspective. From our entrance into the world of spirits when we pass from this life into the next, to the final judgment at the last day, Brother Scarisbrick uses common sense answers in a conversational style that makes this topic easy to understand.
Mormon FAIR-Cast 137: The Anthon Transcript
Podcast: Download (8.8MB)
Subscribe: RSS
What is the Anthon transcript? Can we rely on what Martin Harris said about his encounter with Proffessor Charles Anthon? How long did it take Joseph Smith to translate the Book of Mormon? In this episode of Religion Today, which originally aired on KSL Radio on July 15, 2012, Martin Tanner discusses these issues.
This recording was used by permission of KSL Radio and does not necessarily represent the views of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or of FAIR. (Listeners will note that the first part of this recording is missing.)
4th Watch 2: Testimony and Lifelong Conversion
Podcast: Download (28.7MB)
Subscribe: RSS
The 4th Watch is a new series of podcasts based on the 14th chapter of Matthew in which the Savior meets the apostles by walking on the water. Brother Ned Scarisbrick talks about how he received his testimony while serving in the U.S. Navy in Vietnam.
Brother Scarisbrick also reviews an article written by Vicky Gilpin on the anti-Mormon website called “Mormonism Investigated UK,” regarding Chapter 3 of the Lorenzo Snow Manual, “Lifelong Conversion: Continuing to Advance in the Principles of Truth.” Brother Scarsbrick’s discussion reveals a common set of misunderstandings and false assumptions regarding what we teach. He uses a simple question and answer format to allow us to draw our own conclusions on what is being taught in this lesson.
Is Logical Thinking Compatible with Spiritual Thinking?
Some of you may have received something like this in an email from a friend:
Y0UR M1ND 15 R34D1NG 7H15 4U70M471C4LLY W17H0U7 3V3N 7H1NK1NG 4B0U7 17
How is our mind able to accurately decode the above sentence when many of the words are made up of more numbers than letters? Cognitive scientists tell us that our brains typically and quickly assemble clues from the environment to paint a picture of what’s around us while filling in the necessary assumptions.
“For emaxlpe, it deson’t mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod aepapr, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer are in the rghit pcale. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit pobelrm.”[i]
What does this have to do with challenges to an LDS testimony? I’ll get to that in a moment.
In order for the brain to make assumptions (generally based on past experiences) there needs to be some sort of context—such as the shapes of numbers or the first and last letters of a word. Concurrent words or scenarios also can provide context which can “prime” the brain into filling in the blanks with what is expected. In the following two-word combinations, for example, what is likely the second word? “Wash. So_p.” Most people will fill in the blank with an “a” thereby creating the word “soap”. If instead, however, I gave you this two-word combination: “Eat. So_p.” You would likely fill in the blank with a “u” for the word “soup.”
Dr. Daniel Kahneman (a non-LDS Israeli-American psychologist and Nobel Prize winner) argues that people—depending on the situation—either think “fast” (what he metaphorically refers to as “System 1” thinking) or “slow” (“System 2” thinking).[ii]
System 1 is our intuitive system that makes quick decisions (like reading the garbled words in the sentences above), while System 2 takes over when we have tougher puzzles such as complex math problems or other challenges that require more brain power. System 2 is lazy and avoids work unless it is forced to act. System 1 is always on and helps us navigate through our daily lives. Virtually all of us rely heavily on System 1 and we need the intuitive answers it provides. Without System 1 we couldn’t make quick enough decisions to walk, drive, or carry on a conversation.
When it comes to practically all beliefs (not just religious beliefs), it appears that a large part of our thinking depends on System 1 as well. While we may have a spiritual experience that taps into System 2 to tell us that Jesus is the Christ or that the Book of Mormon is the Word of God, System 1 takes over to fill in the blanks. When we read things in the scriptures, for example, most of us “recontextualize” or envision what we read in the context of the world around us.
This System 1 approach to scripture, Church history, and words from the Brethren, is fine when we draw on those resources in our quest for spiritual strength and enlightenment, but may fail us when we are confronted with challenging questions.
Research has shown that people who put their sole reliance on System 1 typically have a relatively high need for simplicity and absolute answers. Such persons are also generally more rigid and closed-minded and less likely to tolerate ambiguity.[iii] In other words, placing too much reliance on System 1 can lead to dogmatic or inflexible black and white thinking. This can set us up for big problems when we find that some of the issues associated with the Church are more complex than we might assume.
I should first note two important points:
1) The uneasiness that comes from discovering conflicting information is not unique to Mormonism or even religion, but plays a factor in all of those things in which we believe. The angst of discovering religion-critical complexities, however, is generally greater because religion can be a very important part of their lives. The greater the personal investment, the greater the distress.
2) The basic tenets of the Gospel are simple—they are not complex. We are told that the two greatest commandments are to love God and to love our fellow man (Matthew 22:26-40). Joseph Smith likewise said:
“The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.”[iv]
Non-doctrinal issues, however—those topics that deal with the historical and scientific aspects in which important religious events took place—are often more complex than some people have presumed.
And unfortunately, too many people—both members and non-members—seem to think that topics such as the breadth and depth of Noah’s flood, or the DNA make-up of ancient New World inhabitants, or the connection between the Joseph Smith Papyri and the Book of Abraham, are equal (or near equal) to doctrine. They are not.
When a member takes a rigid, dogmatic, and black and white approach to these non-doctrinal issues, they set themselves up for some major intellectual heartburn when they discover that their assumptions don’t hold water. Feeling foolish for putting their faith in such things (which are ancillary to real Gospel teachings), they often express feelings of betrayal and anguish to the point where they lose their faith in primary Gospel teachings as well.
From my experience the vast majority of members who leave because of “intellectual” difficulties with the church are those who take a black and white, rigid approach to the following issues: (1) How they assume scriptures and prophets should behave, compared to how they actually behave; (2) What they assume early LDS history should look like, compared to how it actually looks; or (3) What they assume science should be able to tell us about ancient Book of Mormon peoples, versus what science can actually ascertain.
System-1-conditioned people are not stupid or intellectually lazy, System 1 is the natural mode of thinking upon which we all rely for many of the decisions we make or beliefs we value. Learning how to think outside of System 1’s intuitive box may be part of the process of “putting off the natural man” (Mosiah 3:19) and can help us inoculate our testimony against any damage caused by challenging issues.
In the next several issues I hope to engage some of those things that seem to attract a fundamentalist, black and white approach of thinking in the hopes of showing that we can change our worldviews about non-doctrinal issues without sacrificing our spiritual testimonies of those things that really matter.
___________________________________________________
[i] Both of these examples can be found in “Breaking the Code: Why Yuor Barin Can Raed Tihs,” (10 February 2012) Discovery News (accessed 14 March 2013).
[ii] Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011).
[iii] Hal W. Hendrick, “Cognitive and Organizational Complexity and Behavior: Implications for Organizational Design and Leadership,” Information and Communication Technologies, Society and Human Beings: Theory and Framework, eds. Darek M. Haftor and Anita Mirijamdotter (Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference [IGI Global], 2011), 149.
This article also appeared in Meridian Magazine.