Another Faith Crisis Letter

[Exiled]

4 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

As a matter of historical and objective fact, yes, the straw man is a mark of predation by dishonest arbiters.  One has only to request an evaluation by a disinterested third party, which would include professional historians, sociologists, anthropologists, psychologists, theologians, and the like, who are not and never have been Mormon.

There is certainly a psychologically unbalanced minority within any religion which exhibits these extremely naive views, and they may have acquired that absurd POV through being raised by disturbed parents who are rigid and ultra-puritanical.  I fully expect apostasy by the children of such people, but I do not measure the basis of a religion on that account.  On the other hand, when 80% of evangelicals vote for a pedophile for reasons of expediency, one has to ask serious questions about the basis of their religious beliefs.  It is no accident that Mitt Romney is so uncomfortable with such behavior, which might tell you something about Mormonism.  I am, by the way, not a Romney supporter.

The problem with the "good cop"-"bad cop" role-playing in conning people is that it correctly characterizes a conspiratorial and criminal enterprise like Scientology, but certainly not the Mormon Church.

How do you explain the constant allusions to the church being led by Jesus Christ and that it is his church? Don't the leaders use this to bolster their authority to the point of attaching some infallibility to the decisions they make? Don't they often refer to the church as some separate infallible entity? Even though the leaders are fallible, Jesus Christ isn't and won't allow the church to be led astray, hinting at the church itself as being infallible as Jesus Christ himself is infallible?

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

The saying that Mormons claim their prophets are fallible but don't really believe it ... comes to mind. 

If one were to start a thread on whether or not LDS leaders are perfect, there would not be much disagreement, until specific examples were cited. 

I think quite understandably Mormons give the prophets the benefit of doubt. That is while they accept them as fallible they also think a reasonably high burden of proof needs to be cleared before doubting what they say. Heck, I do that.

6 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

My impression is rather that these two views are two Mormonisms, equally real in the sense that real Mormons hold them. My impression is that many ex-Mormons who are now critics of Mormonism are not creating straw men, but are attacking the Mormonism, real if naive, which they themselves used to hold. In that case, accusing them of building straw men is unreasonable as well as uncharitable.

I think in argument though a strawman can be sincerely believed. Just look at politics. We might laugh at the strawman each side creates of the other yet it seems undeniable that many activists and ideologues sincerely believe those things about their intellectual opponents. So I think we need to be careful not to conflate what people believe from whether they fairly represent their opponents. 

That said I do think you're right that often critics are attacking what they once believed. It's just that their beliefs when they were Mormon were as unfair as they are when they are a critic.

12 hours ago, Exiled said:

So why do you think the church doesn't put some money into archaeology and find the evidence? Many would come back in sackcloth and ashes, I suspect, if there were some evidence here in the americas ...

They put lots into research. However that doesn't mean you find a smoking gun for the Book of Mormon. Indeed there are solid theological reasons why we wouldn't expect to. That said a lot of the recent discoveries of how pre-classical mesoamerica are actually like the Book of Mormon more than what archaeologists originally thought can be traced to Mormon funding. The Weekly Standard actually did a story on Richard Hansen related to this. Regardless of what one thinks of him as an archaeologist he's definitely significantly changed the scholarly perspective on it in a manner that corresponds to the Book of Mormon. (Which isn't to say everything he believes has been accepted yet)

6 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

Real religions also have the same issue. Some things can be disavowed, and the religion does not stand or fall upon the fantasies of over-zealous enthusiasts. Some things have to be kept, however, or the whole religion loses its point. To disavow some naive belief as a straw man creates the new problem of showing that the real belief is not so banal, in comparison with the wonderful-if-it-were-true straw belief, that no-one will even care whether it is true or not.

This is true, but I think it fair to ask what Mormonism should be defended. For instance some Mormons including prominent GAs have rejected evolution. (McConkie comes immediately to mind but some contemporary GAs like Neslon likely reject it as well). However it seems rather silly to say that this is an essential belief of Mormonism. Contrast this with say Book of Mormon historicity. While there certainly are some believers who reject historicity, I think it's fairly easy to defend it as an essential doctrine of Mormonism.

My problem with many critics is that they treat anything that was ever uttered by a GA or made its way into a manual as a core belief. That simply seems silly even if many individual Mormons may actually believe the things criticized. But this is just the classic distinction between religion as representing a set of community beliefs contrasted with what the religion might well believe under criticism. Now sometimes that's almost impossible to know. For instance are current LGBT related practices of the Church essential or are they likely to change over the next 20 years? It's hard to know. Contrast this with things that just seem very likely to be able to be modified without much problem such as adopting conservative Evangelical views of the history of the earth since the fall or the flood.

[RevTestament]

5 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

One view of the LDS Church is as a ragtag gathering of individuals doing the best they can. Another view of it is as an omniscient moral agent. But is it really fair to say that the first view is real Mormonism and the second is a straw man for Mormonism, fallaciously constructed by critics so that they can demolish it to discredit the church?

My impression is rather that these two views are two Mormonisms, equally real in the sense that real Mormons hold them. My impression is that many ex-Mormons who are now critics of Mormonism are not creating straw men, but are attacking the Mormonism, real if naive, which they themselves used to hold. In that case, accusing them of building straw men is unreasonable as well as uncharitable.

Back when I was first interested in Scientology I observed that there seemed to be two Scientologies, the "hard" and the "soft". Hard Scientology promised to confer psychic superpowers; soft Scientology claimed to be nothing more than gentle psychotherapy. Both hard and soft forms had good and bad points. Hard Scientology was wonderfully attractive but extremely dubious. Soft Scientology was perfectly plausible but absurdly overpriced for the banal thing it was. The trick I noticed among defenders of Scientology was a tendency to switch surreptitiously back and forth between hard and soft forms: promise the hard form to attract customers, but retreat to the soft form when challenged by critics. And on a larger scale Scientology as a social organization did the same, by deploying hard-form zealots as recruiters and soft-form believers as apologists.

You have a very observant way about you. I am glad you have stuck around. The latter reminds me of Islam. I am really not familiar enough with scientology to agree or not, however. I don't doubt what you say at all. Pretty much most everything I ever heard about them was bad, so I never spent the time to study them. Hearing about parents signing over all their assets and kids running away and hiding from them, was enough to give me a highly negative impression.

Quote

Real religions also have the same issue. Some things can be disavowed, and the religion does not stand or fall upon the fantasies of over-zealous enthusiasts. Some things have to be kept, however, or the whole religion loses its point. To disavow some naive belief as a straw man creates the new problem of showing that the real belief is not so banal, in comparison with the wonderful-if-it-were-true straw belief, that no-one will even care whether it is true or not.

I think what you are seeing in the LDS Church is some growing pains. For many years the straw man belief was actually kind of touted in the Church, and the GA liked to project a certain air of infallibility - so obviously critics pick up on that - especially since some of those critics left the Church after believing that. I have never had the "luxury" of believing that. I never was comfortable with the priesthood ban - even after it was eliminated and the priesthood opened to all worthy men - the lingering question was why was it there in the first place. I had a more idealized picture of the Church in my youth, but when I reactivated, that was gone. I have been returned to the Church for almost 20 years now, but all of it has been with the personal recognition/belief that the GAs have been wrong before, and are still wrong about some things. That doesn't destroy the Church for me, because I still perceive the restored gospel as true. Believing leaders are fallible doesn't make the gospel wrong, and I enjoy living the restored gospel, and strongly believe in it, and its future for the betterment of man. Encouragingly, I have seen some change in the Church on this front with the publication of the Church essays, and admission that some things were wrong. However, the Church is in for a greater paradigm shift. It will survive it, and return to growth. The Lord foresaw this and it is scriptural. It is part of the plan. And hopefully, people will learn better who serves the Lord, and who does not.

Some people have left the Church purporting the idea that the Church needed change, so the church has a certain tendency to accuse such people of being "ark-steadiers" with even a bit of disdain. However, the actual day will come.

D&C 85:7 And it shall come to pass that I, the Lord God, will send one mighty and strong, holding the scepter of power in his hand, clothed with light for a covering, whose mouth shall utter words, eternal words; while his bowels shall be a fountain of truth, to set in order the house of God, and to arrange by lot the inheritances of the saints whose names are found, and the names of their fathers, and of their children, enrolled in the book of the law of God;

8 While that man, who was called of God and appointed, that putteth forth his hand to steady the ark of God, shall fall by the shaft of death, like as a tree that is smitten by the vivid shaft of lightning.

I suppose the GAs find the inference that the ark needs steadying to be an unpleasant one, but nevertheless, the Church at large seems to somewhat entertain this theme: https://bycommonconsent.com/2008/06/21/steadying-the-ark/

[champatsch]

2 hours ago, Thinking said:

These patterns (which look like grammatical errors) show up all over the place (including the Bible) so how can a connection be drawn from Book of Mormon language to pre-Biblical language?

There's plenty of extra-biblical, archaic Book of Mormon language.  That's how a connection is drawn.

To be accurate, it's not just pre-biblical language; it's both pre- and post-biblical language.  It's probably better to refer to it as extra-biblical language, or something like it.

Edited December 14, 2017 by champatsch

[Exiled]

12 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think quite understandably Mormons give the prophets the benefit of doubt. That is while they accept them as fallible they also think a reasonably high burden of proof needs to be cleared before doubting what they say. Heck, I do that.

I think in argument though a strawman can be sincerely believed. Just look at politics. We might laugh at the strawman each side creates of the other yet it seems undeniable that many activists and ideologues sincerely believe those things about their intellectual opponents. So I think we need to be careful not to conflate what people believe from whether they fairly represent their opponents. 

That said I do think you're right that often critics are attacking what they once believed. It's just that their beliefs when they were Mormon were as unfair as they are when they are a critic.

But do you acknowledge that the church leaders are the souce of the infallible church idea?

Edited December 14, 2017 by Exiled

[clarkgoble]

32 minutes ago, Exiled said:

But do you acknowledge that the church leaders are the souce of the infallible church idea?

Not really. I think it's an understandable inference but I think they've always denied infallibility.

[Exiled]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Not really. I think it's an understandable inference but I think they've always denied infallibility.

Except that the leaders want the members to believe that the Lord will never allow the prophet to lead the people astray even while simultaneously admitting to fallibility of those very prophets. So, the prophet can lead the church astray, right?

[bluebell]

14 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Except that the leaders want the members to believe that the Lord will never allow the prophet to lead the people astray even while simultaneously admitting to fallibility of those very prophets. So, the prophet can lead the church astray, right?

The teaching of the church is that the prophet, when acting as the prophet, cannot lead the church astray.  He can make mistakes though, or be wrong about something (like when Pres. Grant--i think it was him--taught that man would never reach the moon because it was not God's will.  He was wrong about that, but it did not lead the church astray in any way).

[Exiled]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The teaching of the church is that the prophet, when acting as the prophet, cannot lead the church astray.  He can make mistakes though, or be wrong about something (like when Pres. Grant--i think it was him--taught that man would never reach the moon because it was not God's will.  He was wrong about that, but it did not lead the church astray in any way).

I understand that but my overall point is that this concept of not being able to lead the church astray creates the false belief of infallibility, at least where the affairs of the church go. However, at the same time apologists want the leaders and leaders want the leaders to be treated as fallible (as they should because they are). So, it seems pretty obvious that the church can be led astray by fallible leaders who may get their spiritual impressions wrong, being fallible.

Edited December 14, 2017 by Exiled

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I understand that but my overall point is that this concept of not being able to lead the church astray creates the false belief of infallibility, at least where the affairs of the church go. However, at the same time apologists want the leaders and leaders want the leaders to be treated as fallible (as they should because they are). So, it seems pretty obvious that the church can be led astray by fallible leaders who may get their spiritual impressions wrong, being fallible.

First I think you'd have to prove that it is a false belief of infallibility in that regard though.  Does the belief that 'prophets are fallible' cover' when they are speaking as a prophet?'  I don't believe it does.  

[Exiled]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

First I think you'd have to prove that it is a false belief of infallibility in that regard though.  Does the belief that 'prophets are fallible' cover' when they are speaking as a prophet?'  I don't believe it does.  

Don't you agree that a fallible prophet might get a wrong impression from time to time? Or is the prophet infallible when interpreting his impressions?

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Exiled said:

How do you explain the constant allusions to the church being led by Jesus Christ and that it is his church? Don't the leaders use this to bolster their authority to the point of attaching some infallibility to the decisions they make? Don't they often refer to the church as some separate infallible entity? Even though the leaders are fallible, Jesus Christ isn't and won't allow the church to be led astray, hinting at the church itself as being infallible as Jesus Christ himself is infallible?

Jesus Christ also led his apostles, and look what happened to them the instant he was arrested -- they scatter to the four winds, and  his top guy denies him thrice.  Is that what you mean by "being led by Jesus Christ."  The LDS Church is a horizontal structure, not a vertical one.  Lay leadership through and through.  None of the pomp and circumstance which one finds in high churches.  Everyone is painfully aware of the human limitations and fallibility of the leadership.

Even the notion that Jesus won't allow his church to be led astray is an ironic admission that it is fallible and human.  Why else would we need that reassurance?  In other words, we are bedeviled by our shortcomings -- despite which Jesus will lead us to victory, victory over ourselves.

[Exiled]

7 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Jesus Christ also led his apostles, and look what happened to them the instant he was arrested -- they scatter to the four winds, and  his top guy denies him thrice.  Is that what you mean by "being led by Jesus Christ."  The LDS Church is a horizontal structure, not a vertical one.  Lay leadership through and through.  None of the pomp and circumstance which one finds in high churches.  Everyone is painfully aware of the human limitations and fallibility of the leadership.

Even the notion that Jesus won't allow his church to be led astray is an ironic admission that it is fallible and human.  Why else would we need that reassurance?  In other words, we are bedeviled by our shortcomings -- despite which Jesus will lead us to victory, victory over ourselves.

But how can that statement of not leading the church astray be valid without presuming some infallibility with the prophet when it comes to those areas where the church can be led astray? One needs to believe that whenever it comes to major decisions, the prophet will not make a mistake, or be infallible in those decisions. However, that cannot be sustained. Fallible humans control the church and can certainly cause it to make mistakes. Nevertheless, the leaders want us to believe, at least where astray decisions are made, that fallibility is not a part of the equation there, hense situational infallibility. Aren't prophets, prophets when acting as such, hense infallible when acting as such?

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

Except that the leaders want the members to believe that the Lord will never allow the prophet to lead the people astray even while simultaneously admitting to fallibility of those very prophets. So, the prophet can lead the church astray, right?

As it is with any other human free agent, the President of the Church has the right and ability to choose a course of action, such as attempting to lead the Church astray, that could cause him to loose the Spirit and fall from grace. But if he does attempt to lead the Church astray the Lord will remove the President from his office and cause another to take his place. It is as President Wilford Woodruff said in the canonized Official Declaration— 1:

I say to Israel, the Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty. (Official Declaration—1)

There is a component to discussions like this one that is often ignored and that component is the role of scriptural prophecy. The prophecies in the LDS canon of scripture abundantly testify that after wading through much tribulation the restored Church and kingdom of God are going to marvelously succeed and triumph over all their enemies and do so without a loss of the priesthood power and authority that would otherwise thwart the prophesied glorious ultimate victory of the Church. I have a powerful spiritual witness that the Church is true and therefore have perfect confidence the prophecies in the LDS canon are going to be vindicated and proven true. But as a human agent you have every right to believe the Church leaders are leading the Church astray and the prophecies are not going to be fulfilled.

 

Edited December 14, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[bluebell]

42 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Don't you agree that a fallible prophet might get a wrong impression from time to time? Or is the prophet infallible when interpreting his impressions?

I don't believe that God will ever allow a prophet to speak as a prophet to His church and be wrong, though I do believe that prophets are fallible people.

[Maestrophil]

18 hours ago, Exiled said:

But how can that statement of not leading the church astray be valid without presuming some infallibility with the prophet when it comes to those areas where the church can be led astray? One needs to believe that whenever it comes to major decisions, the prophet will not make a mistake, or be infallible in those decisions. However, that cannot be sustained. Fallible humans control the church and can certainly cause it to make mistakes. Nevertheless, the leaders want us to believe, at least where astray decisions are made, that fallibility is not a part of the equation there, hense situational infallibility. Aren't prophets, prophets when acting as such, hense infallible when acting as such?

Where is the line between an error, several errors, and leading the church astray?  

If I am your guide on a trip, and I lead you down a detour, closed, or wrong road, and then eventually get you back on track to your destination, have I led you astray?  I one sense, I suppose I have, but in another very real sense, I have not led you astray at all, as the destination is still in sight.  

I feel this declaration by President Woodruff is true in the sense of my second scenario.  Little detours here and there, possibly, but when the final destination is altered, then the prophet is removed.

 

Edited December 15, 2017 by Maestrophil

[rongo]

35 minutes ago, Exiled said:

But how can that statement of not leading the church astray be valid without presuming some infallibility with the prophet when it comes to those areas where the church can be led astray? One needs to believe that whenever it comes to major decisions, the prophet will not make a mistake, or be infallible in those decisions. However, that cannot be sustained. Fallible humans control the church and can certainly cause it to make mistakes. Nevertheless, the leaders want us to believe, at least where astray decisions are made, that fallibility is not a part of the equation there, hense situational infallibility. Aren't prophets, prophets when acting as such, hense infallible when acting as such?

You are correct that there is tension between a) the prophet can't lead astray, and b) prophets aren't infallible. I think the Church and Church leaders have both insisted that infallibility is a bad standard, but passively encouraged the belief. Where the rubber hits the road for people who insist that prophets are fallible is when they are asked to name an instance where a prophet made a mistake. 

The Brethren in the Journal of Discourses era actually explained at length how a) and b) can be resolved: Prophets can physically/technically teach  untruth (i.e., their agency is intact and won't be overridden by God, and they are imperfect and not remote-controlled by God), but if that were to happen, it wouldn't lead the Church astray because the Church consists of numerous people with discernment and agency as well. In other words, if untruth were to ever come from the Brethren, it would be rejected by the Church. In this manner, they cannot lead astray because it can't be led astray. The prophecies about there not being another restoration and the Church not being left to another people will be fulfilled. 

I think that the Church (including the Brethren) can dwindle and ebb and flow, just like in the scriptures on numerous occasions, while the keys remain intact. 

Edited December 14, 2017 by rongo

[CV75]

47 minutes ago, Exiled said:

But how can that statement of not leading the church astray be valid without presuming some infallibility with the prophet when it comes to those areas where the church can be led astray? One needs to believe that whenever it comes to major decisions, the prophet will not make a mistake, or be infallible in those decisions. However, that cannot be sustained. Fallible humans control the church and can certainly cause it to make mistakes. Nevertheless, the leaders want us to believe, at least where astray decisions are made, that fallibility is not a part of the equation there, hense situational infallibility. Aren't prophets, prophets when acting as such, hense infallible when acting as such?

The prophet can be fallible, and even make a mistake, and the Church will not be led astray. It takes lot more than a mistake to lead the Church astray; it requires the loss of the priesthood keys, as happened in the great apostasy, when bishops were appointed by their peers and no longer by the Twelve who maintained their number (Acts 1:26) for a time.

While Clements controlled the remains of the primitive Church on the basis of his claim to friendship with the early Twelve, itself a reflection of fallible human reasoning, only Christ actually controls the Church, both then and now, through the Twelve. Back then, He allowed the Church to be led astray in fulfillment of prophesy and in line with eternal principle (“Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.” – John 12:24). But now, also in fulfillment of prophesy, that will not happen.

Fallibility is only a tendency, and not necessarily a propensity, nor does the fallibility of the members of the body of Christ a guarantee the failure of the whole body. Through grace the saints may be counted as perfect in some things; at least the Lord turns our efforts into outcomes with which He is satisfied. The fallibility of a prophet has nothing to do with who directs the Church, and so he cannot lead the Church astray. If a prophet were of such an ilk as to attempt such a thing, the Lord would remove him.

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, Exiled said:

Except that the leaders want the members to believe that the Lord will never allow the prophet to lead the people astray even while simultaneously admitting to fallibility of those very prophets. So, the prophet can lead the church astray, right?

I think that's equivocating over what it means to lead the church astray.

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think that's equivocating over what it means to lead the church astray.

That is a key point. What does "lead the Church astray" mean? Teaching untruth ever, at any time? Or, the Church actually going astray because of it?

[clarkgoble]

6 minutes ago, rongo said:

That is a key point. What does "lead the Church astray" mean? Teaching untruth ever, at any time? Or, the Church actually going astray because of it?

I think it clearly means leading the Church into apostasy not having a few incorrect things taught. I'm rather confidence that right now we have doctrines that will change with further light and knowledge. It's just that we don't know which doctrines they are. However despite being imperfect the Church is God's Church and he still accepts it and maintains its authority.

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think it clearly means leading the Church into apostasy not having a few incorrect things taught. 

Very much agree. And it shows in the results or outcomes. Has the Church been led astray (i.e., gone astray) because of XYZ? 

[Thinking]

13 minutes ago, rongo said:

That is a key point. What does "lead the Church astray" mean? Teaching untruth ever, at any time? Or, the Church actually going astray because of it?

Of course The Church doesn't think it's been led astray, and the whole the Lord won't let the Church be led astray belief is so circular. There are some groups who do believe that the LDS Church has gone astray.

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Of course The Church doesn't think it's been led astray, and the whole the Lord won't let the Church be led astray belief is so circular. There are some groups who do believe that the LDS Church has gone astray.

True, there are, but for those who believe this principle, there is safety with the main body. i.e., if you're joining a splinter group, you're off the reservation and off the rails. Joining a splinter group would be de facto confirmation that the Church had been led astray.

[kiwi57]

17 hours ago, sunstoned said:

The church as tried this.  Google Thomas Stuart Ferguson.

Ah yes, that popular ex-Mormon "faith-demoting rumour."