Every once in a while, I stumble on a web site or blog that has information on Mormonism presented in a unique way, or which contains information not commonly found elsewhere. For those looking for just such a site, I recommend clicking right here. It's a site by a former LDS missionary who has recently become disillusioned with the faith (sound familiar?). His latest post is on the racist doctrines of the LDS church (which have never been repudiated; only swept under the rug). Since tomorrow is Juneteenth, and this month is the 30th anniversary of the "policy change" declaration through which God decided He was no longer racist, it seems an appropriate time to send readers of Equality Time over there.
Not long ago, I featured the blog Images of the Restoration as a "Site of the Week." Well, it appears this wonderful blog with accurate depictions of events from Mormon history is getting some attention in the mainstream religion press. Yesterday, a story appeared at Beliefnet.com about the controversy this little blog has stirred up in Mormon circles. In an article titled Artists Present an Uncensored View of Mormon History, religion writer Menachem Wecker describes the harshly negative reaction of church representatives and leaders to an accurate depiction of Mormon history. Church public relations employee Kim Farah had "zero interest" in commenting on an "anti-Mormon" blog. An LDS Bishop said the artists were "anti-Mormon activists parading as historians" and compared viewing their works of art with asking Hitler his opinion about the Jews.
I find these comments from official representatives and leaders of the LDS church fascinating. What they are saying is that depicting events from Mormon history (taken from official primary church documents) accurately is an "anti-Mormon" enterprise. In short, they are admitting that truth is antithetical to Mormonism. It's a stunning admission, really. Also interesting from the article is the fact that neither the church representatives nor any of the Mormon apologists were able to point out any inaccuracies in the portrayals found on the site. Some criticize the quality of the depictions, but none could contest that the events depicted did not happen. So, what's the problem? If, as some of my Mormon friends assert, the LDS church is not opposed to accurate depictions of its history, why the harsh criticisms and vitriol thrown at this site? It's a curious thing, really.
Over at the Fox News web site, they have posted 21 questions posed to the LDS church and answered by the voice for the "one true and living church on the face of the earth"--yea, even the unnamed public relations spokesperson. While some of the questions are poorly worded, they do represent a decent sampling of questions frequently encountered by members of the LDS church. So, how did the church do in answering? I present here the questions, the answers, and my commentary. Before getting to the Q&A, I find this from the article interesting: "The Church objected to
answering some of the questions on the grounds that they misrepresent
the basic tenets of the Mormon religion." I am not sure why that would be an objection? Why not just correct any misrepresentation in the answer?
Also, the church's prefatory statement is curious: "Many of these questions are typically found on anti-Mormon blogs or Web sites which aim to misrepresent or distort Mormon doctrines. Several of these questions do not represent ... any serious attempt to depict the core values and beliefs of its members."
Which questions? And which blogs and which web sites "aim to misrepresent or distort Mormon doctrines"? Is the church perhaps referring to the www.josephsmith.net web site and its misrepresentations of the gold-plate translation process and Joseph Smith's family life? It's hard to know. And should questions that people have about Mormonism make a "serious attempt to depict the core values and beliefs of" Mormons? Isn't the point of the questions to find out about those beliefs and values? A strange objection, to be sure. On to the Q&A.
My friend, colleague, and fellow ward-mate Jordan F. recently put up this post on the "Mantle and the Intellect" at the blog he co-hosts with his brother John--A Bird's Eye View. In the post, Jordan defends an oft-criticized talk given by President Boyd K. Packer in 1981 titled "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect." In that talk President Packer, among other things, encouraged LDS church scholars and educators to teach a faith-promoting version of history and to downplay or ignore entirely any facts or evidence from the historical record that could cast the leaders of the church in a negative light. He discouraged the dissemination of information about church leaders that would show their humanity, telling church educators to focus exclusively on information that supports the Mormon truth claim that God is leading and guiding the leaders of the LDS church. I disagree with much of what President Packer says in the talk, and with the way he says it. Jordan has a different view, seeing the talk as "a beacon of light in today’s sea of spiritual darkness that is much of academia."
In his spirited defense of President Packer, Jordan notes that at the heart of Packer's talk is the idea that Mormon history cannot be properly understood without starting with the conclusion, born of the Holy Ghost, that the foundational claims of the LDS church are true. In other words, the only proper approach to Mormon history for consumption by members of the LDS church is from the perspective of a true-believing Mormon who accepts Joseph Smith as the prophet of the restoration, the Utah-based church as the only true and living church on earth, the Book of Mormon as literal history translated by the gift and power of God, and the authority of those who lead the LDS church as absolute. In other words, as Jordan puts it, the facts about Mormon history "cannot be properly understood divorced from a belief that God orchestrated the whole thing through imperfect and misunderstanding human beings." Jordan thinks that, regarding Mormon history, "one MUST look at the foundational events of the Church through a lens of testimony in order to see the evidence of the divine hand in them, and . . . this is also how church history MUST be taught in LDS classrooms."
In Jordan's post, he points to me as a living example of the "problem" Packer was seeking to prevent with his "Mantle and Intellect" talk. Jordan quotes from an earlier post of mine here at Equality Time, in which I discuss my decision to re-assess Mormon truth claims by examining the facts and evidence with my "testimony lenses" off. This re-assessment led me to doubt, then reject, the literal truth of the LDS church's foundational claims. And this gets to the heart of the disagreement between me and Jordan. He thinks that Mormonism's foundational truth claims should be assumed, a priori, and that one's evaluation of church history and doctrine must be filtered to support that beginning assumption. Any examination, exploration, or exposition of Mormon doctrine or history should be informed by and infused with a testimony of the divinity of the work. To quote my friend, we should "view the historical record through the lens of faith and our spiritual impressions." I respectfully disagree.
By Guest Blogger fh451
After a hiatus, I continue the letter with a discussion of Polygamy, Kirtland Anti-Banking Safety Society, the Priesthood Restoration, and Mountain Meadows.
By Guest Blogger Juggler Vain
The LDS Church, like any organization that asks people to do things they wouldn't normally do on their own, employs a variety of persuasive techniques. What follows is an examination of three of the LDS Church's techniques: (1) Moroni's Promise, found in Moroni 10:4; (2) Alma the Younger's Sermon on the Seed, from Alma 32; and (3) Boyd K. Packer's Testimony Experiment, from "The Candle of the Lord," a 1982 address to mission presidents, published on page 51 of the January 1983 Ensign.
The Low Ball
The "low ball" is a common sales technique that consists of offering a really good deal to a potential customer, building rapport, and then subtly adding conditions to the deal that make it less of a bargain, relying on the customer's reluctance to walk away and be perceived as (1) greedy, shallow, or cheap (for only wanting the best deal), (2) stupid (for not realizing there would be conditions), or (3) a liar (if they promised to buy before learning of the conditions).
A low ball is commonly found in print or broadcast media, for example, when an advertisement is followed by fine print (or really, really fast talking). In religion, the low ball is common enough to be cliche: "God will freely forgive you of all of your sins (but only if you send me money)." Like this example, the technique usually involves an independent positive statement, followed by a "BUT" phrase. Low balls are routinely used by the LDS Church. They are found in scripture and taught over the pulpit.
In following up on the story about the excommunication of Mesa, Arizona church member Lyndon Lamborn, I emailed Lyndon asking for more details about the circumstances surrounding his excommunication. He kindly responded and, with his permission, I post his response here. The words are entirely his (with a few minor editorial revisions to clean up typos or protect the identity of those whose permission for revealing their identity I did not obtain). Some of his words are stronger than what I would have chosen to use, but I think his story is important, and it has garnered enough interest, to share it here uncensored and not watered down. The words following the jump are Lyndon's own, and it is my understanding they were originally written in response to further media inquiries. My thanks to Lyndon for allowing me to share this with the readers of Equality Time.
I have been participating off and on this past week in an online discussion regarding the excommunication of a disaffected Mormon in Mesa, Arizona. The discussion has apparently shattered the record for most comments ever received on a news article published in the East Valley Tribune. The article that spawned the discussion concerns one Lyndon Lamborn, a member of the Thunder Mountain Ward in Mesa. Apparently, Lamborn has been studying church history and doctrine from non-approved, non-correlated sources for the past couple years (sound familiar to anyone), and he has come to doubt the literal dogmatism contained in the official sources. Lamborn shared his doubts with his Bishop and Stake President (James Molina). He also shared some of his doubts and concerns with his brothers (who are also Mormon) and some of the members of his ward. For this, he was excommunicated. That's not so unusual (unfortunately). What is unusual is that President Molina told Lamborn that his excommunication would be announced in every ward in the stake in Priesthood and Relief Society meetings. And that's when Lamborn went to the media.
Episode 15 of Mormon Matters is now up and ready for download. You can get it directly from the Mormon Matters web site or subscribe through iTunes. This latest episode continues the discussion of the concept of "inoculating" the saints to prevent disaffection when members of the LDS Church taught one thing by the church do some digging on their own and discover the truth is, well, more complicated.
Panelists on this episode include yours truly, along with guest Equality Time blogger and my good friend Mayan Elephant, as we join regular panelists John Hamer, Ann Porter, and host John Dehlin for a lively discussion. My thanks to John Dehlin for allowing me to express my thoughts on the subject.
Continuing my comments on Mormon Matters Episode 12: Inoculating the Saints, I will now address some of the arguments made by the panelists at the Sunstone Symposium. Thanks to those who commented on my earlier remarks both here and at the New Order Mormon discussion board and the Further Light and Knowledge discussion board.
After downplaying the vexatiousness of the problems the LDS Church faces, the panelist talked about tolerance for different religious ideas and expressed his opinion that everyone has ideas that are likened to diseases and we are all constantly trying to infect each other with our idea-diseases. This echoes a notion expressed by Boyd Packer in a speech he gave in the early 1980s in which he warned church educators against catching and spreading disease germs. In Packer's opinion, historical facts that might threaten a basic Mormon testimony are considered disease germs to be avoided. In a later talk, Packer reiterated his call to avoid teaching truths that were not useful in favor of those that were "faith-promoting." Though the panelist did not invoke Packer, I couldn't help thinking that Packer would approve of this germ-based view of ideas and human interactions. It wasn't clear to me, though, exactly what the point was. If the speaker was saying that the "inoculation" under discussion was an inoculation against the disease germs of false ideas and anti-Mormon lies, he misses the point.
For the 12th installment of the Mormon Matters podcast, John Dehlin has posted the audio from a panel discussion at the recently held Sunstone Symposium in Salt Lake City, Utah. The panelists comprised a “who’s who” of Mormon apologetics: Charles Randall Paul, Blake Ostler, Mike Ash, and Kevin Barney. They discussed the idea of “information inoculation” with respect to thorny issues in Mormon history, doctrine, and culture. The idea of “information inoculation” is that the church could teach troubling issues in a faithful context (in classroom instruction, periodical materials, conference addresses, seminaries and institutes, etc.) so that when members eventually encounter the troubling issues from sources critical of the church, they will not feel a sense of having been lied to, deceived, and betrayed by the church.
When a Justice of the United States Supreme Court disagrees with an opinion rendered by the majority of the Court, he or she often will file a dissenting opinion. These opinions traditionally include the words "I respectfully dissent." Even when the Justice passionately, vigorously, strenuously disagrees with the majority, it is customary to include the words "I respectfully dissent." (For an exception, see here). More than just a nod to decorum or a tip of the hat to tradition, this act is emblematic of the strength and vitality of the American republic. It demonstrates that even on issues of tremendous import involving, quite literally, life-and-death issues, we can treat one another with dignity and respect. The peaceful exercise of ultimate power is our nation's greatest triumph, in my opinion, and it is reflected in the simple phrase used by Supreme Court Justices in their dissenting opinions.
In religious discussions on the Internet (including here at Equality Time) and "in real life" the ideal exemplified by our nation's highest jurists is seldom achieved. I think participants on both sides of a given relgious debate contribute to the problem. On the one hand, religious devotees are often thin-skinned, unable to dfferentiate between criticism of an idea and personal animus. On the other hand, some who criticize religious dogma sometimes do engage in ad hominem attacks. On balance, I think that, at least on my blog, the discussion board I help moderate, and the blogs on which I comment (all dealing with Mormonism), the biggest impediment to a dialogue that could result in mutual understanding (if not ultimate agreement) comes from a mistaken belief among devout religionists that those who criticize specific religious ideas or practices lack respect for people of faith. For me, nothing could be further from the truth and I must say to those who hold such views, I respectfully dissent.
In the 5th and final part of this multi-part interview with Dr. Richard Bushman, the world’s foremost scholar on Joseph Smith and early Mormonism and author of Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, John Dehlin offers some final thoughts on his time with Brother Bushman, and Bushman himself provides some final musings on the challenges of dealing with tough Mormon issues. He then concludes with his testimony of Joseph Smith.
To provide direct feedback to John Dehlin or to Dr. Bushman about this episode, please email [email protected]
The discussion below is intended to be, a "Robust but Thoughtful, Open to All Viewpoints, Raucous but Respectful, Virtually Uncensored" conversation--including all types of Mormons (from apologists to ex-Mormons)." Please enjoy!!! And a MAJOR thanks to Equality for hosting the discussion.
- Also, for a somewhat liberal, multi-sided (yet still faithful) conversation about the series overall, check out The Cultural Hall.
- To discuss Dr. Bushman's comments about Sunstone, and the role it plays in dealing with tough historical and cultural issues within Mormonism, check out SunstoneBlog.com
- Finally, for a somewhat conservative, faithful, mainstream conversation from the traditional Bloggernacle, check back here if/when one presents itself.