FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Mormonism and apologetics
Key sources |
|
|||
Wiki links |
||||
FAIR links |
|
|||
Online |
|
|||
Video |
|
|||
Print |
|
|||
Navigators |
Mormonism and apologetics
Jump to Subtopic:
- Question: What is "apologetics"?
- Question: Why do apologetics?
- Question: What are the risks of participating in apologetics?
- Question: Do apologists tell members how "scientists continue to get it wrong"?
- Question: How does the Church view Mormon apologists?
- Question: Are apologists isolated from other members because of differences in their beliefs?
- Question: Do Latter-day Saint apologists receive compensation for their efforts?
- Question: How does FAIR respond to criticism?
- Question: What are some common ways that critics attempt to dismiss the work of FAIR?
- Question: Does FAIR provide "official" answers to questions?
Question: What is "apologetics"?
The word literally means "in defense of the faith"
You can never argue a person into faith; Christian theology and apologetics exist in order to make sense of the world for the believer, but they do not in themselves create that belief
—Gerald Bray, "Man's Righteousness and God's Salvation," Evangel, the British Evangelical Review 10. 2 (1992): 6.
Many people are not familiar with "apologetics," and raise a variety of questions. These include:
- What is apologetics?
- Why are we "apologizing" for our doctrine?
What is apologetics?
The word "apologetic" is not commonly used in the LDS community and may be unfamiliar to many people. The word literally means "in defense of the faith." It is not talking about apologizing to anyone or being sorry for something. (From the FAIR FAQ.) The word comes from the Greek "apologia" and is used four times in the Greek New Testament, including 1 Peter 3:15.
Question: Why do apologetics?
Apologists participate for a variety of reasons
Apologists participate for a variety of reasons. They may:
- have an interest in Church history and doctrine
- have a background in the study of ancient languages or other religions which give a useful perspective on the restored gospel
- experience frustration with anti-Mormon authors who ignore the totality of LDS doctrine and thought
- wish to protect others from poorly-reasoned criticisms, thus preventing others from enduring the suffering which anti-Mormon attacks have caused in the apologist's own life, or the lives of friends or family
- want to enhance their own knowledge of Church doctrine or history
- need information to improve their ability to share the gospel with others who have sincere questions or misunderstandings
- enjoy the company of other like-minded Church members, who are interested in the same sorts of issues
- serve in Church leadership positions which require them to address questions
Is it appropriate for a Church member to be involved in apologetics?
C.S. Lewis pointed out that since enemies have invoked 'science' or 'reason' to attack faith, it may now be necessary that someone respond in the same vein:
To be ignorant and simple now—not to be able to meet the enemies on their own ground—would be to throw down our weapons, and to betray our uneducated brethren who have, under God, no defense but us against the intellectual attacks of the heathen. Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered. [1]
Indeed, the great risk which apologetics seeks to counter is that those unfamiliar with anti-Mormon arguments will assume that there are no good answers to the critics. Elder Neal A. Maxwell warned of the consequences of such a situation:
Let us be articulate for while our defense of the kingdom may not stir all hearers, the absence of thoughtful response may cause fledglings among the faithful to falter. What we assert may not be accepted, but unasserted convictions soon become deserted convictions. [2]
Since you can't "prove" religion, is apologetics a waste of time?
Dallin H. Oaks spoke to this concern:
The lack of decisive scientific proofs of scriptural truths does not preclude gospel defenders from counterarguments of that nature. When opponents attack the Church or its doctrines with so-called proofs, loyal defenders will counter with material of a comparable nature to defend. [3]
And, Neal A. Maxwell noted that God would provide fascinating additions to our understanding:
There will be a convergence of discoveries (never enough, mind you, to remove the need for faith) to make plain and plausible what the modern prophets have been saying all along…[I] do not expect incontrovertible proof to come in this way…, but neither will the Church be outdone by hostile or pseudo-scholars. [4]
Apologetics does not aim to "create belief": It aims only to dispense with the poor reasons given by critics for disbelief
Austen Farrar said, of C.S. Lewis:
Though argument does not create conviction, lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish. [5]
Apologetics does not aim to "create belief"—it aims only to dispense with the poor reasons given by critics for disbelief. As Elder Maxwell put it, the critics ought not to be permitted "uncontested slam-dunks." [6]
In the same way, providing evidence that a belief is true is not intended to create belief, but it may give a sincere seeker additional reason(s) to obtain a spiritual and experiential witness of that belief.
Question: What are the risks of participating in apologetics?
Impatience
Apologists often confront the same anti-Mormon arguments again, and again, and again!
It can be frustrating to see a new crop of anti-Mormon books, films, pamphlets, and websites trot out the same tired claims, without even attempting to address the LDS responses. Apologists must remain patient, and not become short or irritable with those who have sincere questions just because the apologist has 'heard it all before.'
Over-reacting
Cautioned Elder Neal A. Maxwell:
The ability to create a climate around us in which people, as in the case of the man who approached Jesus, feel free enough to say the equivalent of "Lord, help Thou my unbelief," is a critical skill. If we can deal with doubt effectively in its nascent stages, we can assist people by a warmth and love which frees them to share the worries that they may have, and increase the probability of dissolving their doubt. But, if we over-react to dissent or to doubt, we are apt, rather than inculcating confidence in those we serve, to exhibit what, in the eyes of the rebel, may seem to be a flaw in our inner confidence in what we say.
We need to relax to be effective in the process of helping people who are building testimonies. Over-reacting and pressing the panic button when doubt first makes its appearance can render us ineffective. This is one of the reasons why parents are often in a temporarily poorer tactical position to deal effectively with a rebellious son or daughter—the anxiety is too real to relax. In these circumstances, bishops, teachers, and friends can be helpful—not because they are clinically detached, for their love and concern should be honestly communicated—but rather because third parties sometimes can listen a little longer without reacting, can prescribe with a clear-headed assessment, and most of all, can be a fresh voice which conveys care and concern, a voice which has risen above similar challenges. [7]
Pride
An apologist can decide (wrongly) that the issues which excite and concern him must excite everyone. There are many people for whom apologetic issues are of no importance. This implies no defect in them or in those who are concerned about a given issue.
C.S. Lewis remarked:
The intellectual life is not the only road to God, nor the safest, but we find it to be a road, and it may be the appointed road for us. Of course, it will be so only so long as we keep the impulse pure and disinterested. That is the great difficulty. As the author of the Theologia Germanica says, we may come to love knowledge-our knowing-more than the thing known: to delight not in the exercise of our talents but in the fact that they are ours, or even in the reputation they bring us. Every success in a scholar's life increases this danger. If it becomes irresistible, he must give up his scholarly work. The time for plucking out the right eye has arrived. [8]
And, any field in which one becomes something of an expert is ripe for pride. As Alma cautioned his missionary sons, "See that ye are not lifted up unto pride; yea, see that ye do not boast in your own wisdom, nor of your much strength." Alma 38:11 Such strength can be apologetic or mental as much as physical.
Spiritual Neglect
Apologetics does not substitute for faith, prayer, scripture study, Christ-like service, and spiritual renewal. Apologists must remember that their main task is to encourage others to seek a personal witness for themselves; the 'rational' part of apologetics is really a prelude to the important work of conversion. At best, apologetics 'gets someone's attention,' and may help them give a novel or strange idea 'the benefit of the doubt' sufficient to plant the seed of faith (Alma 32).
LDS apologists should never fall into the trap of assuming that logical argument can create belief, or that the 'case' for the gospel of Christ can be made rationally irresistible.
This applies to those for whom we write, but it applies to with even greater force to ourselves.
C.S. Lewis gave an important caution from his own work in Christian apologetics:
I have found that nothing is more dangerous to one's own faith than the work of an apologist. No doctrine of that Faith seems to me so spectral, so unreal as one that I have just successfully defended in a public debate. For a moment, you see, it has seemed to rest on oneself: as a result, when you go away from that debate, it seems no stronger than that weak pillar. That is why we apologists take our lives in our hands and can be saved only by falling back continually from the web of our own arguments, as from our intellectual counters, into the Reality—from Christian apologetics into Christ Himself. That also is why we need one another's continual help—oremus pro invincem [Let us pray for each other]. [9]
Question: Do apologists tell members how "scientists continue to get it wrong"?
Many apologists have advanced degrees in many areas of science
Critics often portray apologists as mindless automatons who are unable to think rationally in their attempt to "defend the faith" at all costs. It is assumed by secular critics that Mormonism and science are mutually exclusive. It is not the job of the apologist to discount what science tells us. Many apologists have advanced degrees in many areas of science (see http://mormonscholarstestify.org/). These individuals have found that science and belief are compatible rather than being mutually exclusive.
Apologetic arguments may evolve as science provides us with new answers about the world that we live in
It is true, however, that apologetic arguments may evolve as science provides us with new answers about the world that we live in. Science is continually changing, and we welcome the new knowledge that it brings to us. When new discoveries are made, apologists will attempt to determine whether this new information fits in with LDS beliefs. It is possible to be an apologist while still understanding that there are many things that science will continue to teach us.
One should exercise caution, however, before immediately incorporating a new discovery into an apologetic argument
One should exercise caution, however, before immediately incorporating a new discovery into an apologetic argument. An example of this occurred with forged documents such as the "Salamander Letter" produced by Mark Hofmann. When these documents were obtained by the church and made publicly available, apologists and critics alike immediately began creating material to explain them. When it was discovered that these documents were forgeries, it became necessary to provide disclaimers on some apologetic material that was written during this period of time. Unfortunately, critics do not issue such disclaimers, and works such as D. Michael Quinn's Early Mormonism and the Magic World View and Grant Palmer's An Insider's View of Mormon Origins, which were heavily influenced by the Hofmann forgeries, continue to be cited as references in modern critical works. In this case, negative apologetics based upon faulty information continues to have ongoing detrimental effects.
Attitudes toward apologetics
Jump to details:
- Does the Church avoid mentioning the work of LDS apologists in any public forum sponsored by the Church?
- Does the Church avoid endorsing any LDS apologetic scholarship?
Does the Church avoid mentioning the work of LDS apologists in any public forum sponsored by the Church?
No. For example, the work of pioneer apologist Hugh Nibley has been repeatedly cited even in general conference. [10]
The Church's official website also links to various apologetic individuals and groups. For example, their section on DNA and the Book of Mormon refers to the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, the FARMS Review, and work by Dr. Daniel Peterson, Dr. John Butler, and Dr. Jeff Lindsay. [11] FAIR's response to an anti-Mormon DVD was also given prominent attention at lds.org, now www.churchofjesuschrist.org. [12]
Readers can consult mentions of FAIR in various media.
Does the Church avoid endorsing any LDS apologetic scholarship?
The Church and its leaders are rightly cautious about officially endorsing any material that has not been approved by the correlation process of the Church. For most secular undertakings—such as those involving science and history—the Church gives no official endorsement nor takes any official position.
Apologists prefer it this way. For example, FAIR can and does make mistakes. If they are brought to our attention, we strive to correct them. But, the Church cannot be held responsible for any errors that we, as private members, might make. The Church and its leaders focus on preaching the gospel of Christ and administering the saving ordinances. Interested private members may seek to explain and defend their faith with the best tools at their disposal, but the truth of that faith does not depend on the soundness of their arguments.
Question: Are apologists isolated from other members because of differences in their beliefs?
Apologists do not exist in some special "caste" that sets them apart from the general "non-apologist" church population
Apologists do not exist in some special "caste" that sets them apart from the general "non-apologist" church population. This idea has even been characterized as a difference between "Internet Mormons vs. Chapel Mormons". [13]
Many apologists either have been, or currently are, elders quorum presidents, high priest group leaders, Primary and Relief Society presidency members, bishops, high councilmen, stake presidents, and even general authorities
Being in positions of leadership such as these hardly isolates the apologist from the general Church membership. If anything, this means that the apologist is in an even better position to assist members when they do seek out answers to difficult questions. The idea that apologists are somehow isolated in their own self-constructed world of beliefs is an idea that the critics would like to promote, but which is far from the truth.
Question: Do Latter-day Saint apologists receive compensation for their efforts?
Don't give up your "day job": There are no paid positions in Latter-day Saint apologetics
Those who wish to achieve a substantial level of income would be well advised to avoid LDS apologetics entirely, as it can consume substantial amounts of a person's "off-time." Most LDS apologists perform volunteer work to defend the faith while holding down their normal "day job."
Members of FAIR are not paid for their efforts
FAIR is a 501(c)(3) non-profit, and all of its members (with the exception of some administrative staff) are unpaid volunteers.
All efforts devoted to FAIR are performed only after its members spend time with their families, perform their "day job," and fulfill church responsibilities. FairMormon is not, and should not be, the top priority in any of its members' lives. This means that the work sometimes proceeds slowly, but it does proceed forward.
Having a "day job" with a Church sponsored institution does not preclude one from practicing apologetics
Some individuals who practice LDS apologetics happen to be employed by institutions sponsored by the Church: typically Brigham Young University. Critics often use the ad hominem fallacy to claim that those who work for BYU are being paid by the Church, and so shouldn't be listened to.
Being employed at a Church school is certainly a form of bias. But those who work at a secular institution have their own sources of bias—if they argued that angels appeared to farm boys and provided gold plates, their colleagues might think less of them!
Employees at Church schools are not paid for apologetics&mash;they are paid for whatever scholarly research they do. This may or not have apologetic value.
Certainly no one at BYU is compelled to do apologetics, or worries about losing their job if they don't—if anyhthing, we wish BYU employees would do more to defend the Church than they do.
As always, the only way to know if an apologetic argument is worthwhile is to read and engage with the argument and the evidence offered.
Question: How does FAIR respond to criticism?
Everyone is an apologist sometimes—whenever you give a logical reason for what you believe (in religion, in politics, in science), you are providing "an apology" in this sense.
There are generally two approaches for apologetics, as there is for any reasoned argument:
- the apologist can answer the objections which others raise (sometimes called "negative" apologetics in that it seeks to "negate" the arguments someone has made against the Church);
- the apologist can provide affirmative reasons which support their argument (sometimes called "positive" apologetics, because it "adds" to the evidence in favor of one's position.
As you can see, we all do this, all the time. Apologetics usually involves doing a mix of both of the above.
To prepare it's material, FAIR:
- Seeks out criticism—volunteers stay familiar with critical websites, critical researchers.
- Studies the evidence and claims being offered
- Considers mistakes in reasoning, biases that are unaccounted for, and evidence that the criticism seems not to have considered
- Prepares easy-to-read and well-documented summaries of their findings, with links for those who want to learn more.
Logical fallacies: how to reason well
In order to provide a well-reasoned response, all need to understand the language of debate. Errors in reasoning are sometimes called logical fallacies.
FAIR has provided an introduction to logical fallacies on this page. Watching out for these errors in our own thinking or the thinking of those with whom we debate religion, politics, or scholarship helps us identify sloppy thinking.
FAIR strives to update its materials
Scholarship, history, science, and knowledge never stand still—there is always more to learn, and new things to learn. As more information becomes available, FAIR volunteers may add to or correct arguments that have been made before.
If you find an error or think we've overlooked an important source, argument, or area of investigation, let us know. Much of our material has been developed because of questions from readers.
Conclusion
The Lord’s church doesn’t have to worry about criticism. It owns the world’s largest library of anti-Mormon literature under divine mandate. The Lord promises us:
Wherefore, confound your enemies; call upon them to meet you both in public and in private; and inasmuch as ye are faithful their shame shall be made manifest. Wherefore, let them bring forth their strong reasons against the Lord. Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you—there is no weapon that is formed against you shall prosper; And if any man lift his voice against you he shall be confounded in mine own due time.
Question: What are some common ways that critics attempt to dismiss the work of FAIR?
Critics often seek to dismiss the work of FAIR and tell their audience that there are no good answers to their questions. It is probably much easier to encourage their audience to ignore us, rather than engage with what we present.
Claim: 'Truth needs no defense'; 'Just seeing the table of contents for FAIR will show you how many problems the Church has'.
Some people assume that the amount of work that has gone into Latter-day Saint apologetics through FAIR suggests that there are a lot of issues that the Church has to deal with. Others have claimed that Truth needs no defense. It will fight for itself. This is clearly false, for a number of reasons:
- Some people are ignorant of the truth
- Some people are aware of the truth, but don’t have the expertise to appreciate all its nuances.
- Some critics misrepresent the truth
- Some critics understand the truth but purposefully lie in order to win influence.
- Knowledge is always increasing; what might have seemed like a good criticism in the past may now be shown to be incorrect because of new information.
If you were accused of a serious crime, would you listen to a lawyer who told you that "truth needs no defense"? In court, we understand that the truth especially needs a defense, since people can misunderstand or misrepresent evidence.
Claim: FAIR doesn’t acknowledge the issue fully; FAIR has created a lot of answers out of confirmation bias and isn’t reliable; FAIR is dishonest and doesn’t include both sides of an argument fairly
Some have claimed that FAIR is not fully honest. Some claim that FAIR
- does not acknowledge the complexity of a problem
- produces answers that are subject to confirmation bias
- is dishonest about whether an issue has a good answer.
In response, we would suggest the reader consider these points:
- FAIR provides its reader with the actual criticisms (usually with direct citation from critics) and our answers. We have worked with hundreds of people with questions, and so are usually well-acquainted with the issues at stake. If we have omitted an area of concern to you, please let us know.
- Like everyone, FAIR authors have biases. By putting our work on an apologetic website, we are making our biases clear. Readers can account for those biases. Critics often portray themselves as just helpful, disinterested seekers of truth. Readers troubled by something from a critic should likewise consider the critics’ biases—and ask whether they received all the information provided by FAIR from the critic.
- FAIR strives for accuracy, truthfulness, and transparency. If readers encounter a statement or citation that is false or mistaken, we appreciate having it drawn to our attention. FAIR has many authors and volunteers, and we do make mistakes. These mistakes are unintentional.
- Readers should remember that it is not in FAIR’s interest to be dishonest. We know that our material will be scrutinized heavily. Critics are often gleeful when they find an error (but this provides us with valuable peer review!) We also know that if we are dishonest in one article, that will reduce readers’ trust.
- Even when mistakes are found, this does not mean that the author was dishonest: an accusation of dishonesty presumes intent to deceive and knowledge that one was deceiving.
Claim: FAIR's responses are full of logical fallacies and especially ad hominem attacks
In an attempt to dismiss FAIR’s work, critics will often claim that we commit logical fallacies, especially ad hominem attacks. An accusation of a fallacy is, in itself, a fallacy unless the critic can provide examples. This they rarely, if ever, attempt. Readers should ask themselves if claims of fallacy are more of an effort to discredit us before our arguments have been heard.
Ad hominem means to the man—it is a type of bad reasoning in which the person making the argument is attacked, rather than the argument itself.
FAIR does not attack individuals, or encourage readers to dismiss their arguments unheard. We have often told critics making this claim that if they can point to any examples, we will correct the problem. No one has done so yet, so if you spot one, let us know! Ad hominem attacks encourage the audience to ignore someone’s argument by painting the person making the argument in a bad light. Readers should realize that accusing someone of ad hominem without providing specific evidence is ‘’itself’’ a form of ad hominem.
Many critics who are quick to blame FAIR for this have egregious examples of their own.
Claim: FAIR simply tries to cloud the issues
FAIR aims to provide context and further information—only someone with significant bias would claim that these are of no importance. Readers will have to decide for themselves whether the information we provide is helpful. (If you realized that claiming someone just clouds the issues without providing specific examples and counterarguments, congratulations—you’ve spotting another example of the ad hominem fallacy!)
Claim: FAIR gaslights its readers
The act of gaslighting is to manipulate someone through psychological means so that they question reality. It is not gaslighting to argue that there is another way of seeing matters in light of different evidence or presuppositions.
Claim: FAIR uses biased scholarship to substantiate their views. Unbiased scholars don't accept the Book of Mormon nor Book of Abraham as factual or historical. Unbiased historians acknowledge Joseph Smith's history as deeply problematic. You can't trust any of FAIR's apologetic scholarship
As noted above, everyone has biases. This is why we must explore the evidence that people offer, and not just claim that they "have biases". (Every critic of the Church has their own biases—often very deep-seated ones. But, they don’t tell us that we should ignore them because of their biases. Bias does not mean that one cannot do good scholarly or scientific or historical work—if it did, there would be no such work done at all.
Many of the authors cited by FAIR have significant academic credentials. For instance, Dr. John Gee has his PhD in Egyptology from Yale. For example, Dr. John Gee wrote:
- According to Oxford University’s and the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München’s Online Egyptological Bibliography, I am already in the top 4 percent of Egyptologists historically in terms of number of Egyptological publications.[. . .] In 2018 I served as a member of the Board of Trustees for the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities.[14]
This does not mean that Gee should be accepted uncritically—but it is also not fair to claim that because he has a bias, he cannot have something worthwhile to say. The only way to know is to read him—and if you’ve been following along, you’ll know that critics seem desperate to get you to not read what we have to offer. Why might that be?
Question: Does FAIR provide "official" answers to questions?
FAIR provides information and opinions, but does not speak for the Church
FAIR's articles, responses to "Ask the Apologist" queries, etc., contain a disclaimer to the effect that FAIR volunteers and authors are not speaking authoritatively for the Church (or even for FAIR itself) but only giving their personal opinion or perspective on each issue or question.
Why should anyone listen to FAIR, then, if they can't speak with authority for the Church? To whom can one turn for the authorized, "final answer" on every topic?
FAIR need not speak with the authority of the Church itself, or be an official representative of the Church, in order to provide a useful resource for people to gain a better understanding of Latter-day Saint history and teachings. Further, it is not necessarily correct for us to expect to turn to our Church leaders, particularly the general authorities, for the answer to every single question on a gospel topic.
On many issues, there is no official Church position, and so there is nothing that an official Church response will provide. In such cases, members are encouraged to use their agency to "study it out in [their] mind" as they seek knowledge and revelation from human and divine sources.
It is important to first recognize that FAIR is an organization completely independent of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. FAIR is not owned or endorsed by the Church as an official mouthpiece, so FAIR cannot claim any official status. The FAIR FAQ article reads:
We try very hard to not give the impression that we are speaking for the Church in any way. We are not affiliated with the Church. We therefore try to avoid doctrinal declarations. Most of the time it isn't an issue as we are discussing things from a historical or scholarly point of view. Occasionally we get into discussions of doctrine when we feel our beliefs as Latter-day Saints have been misrepresented. At those times the writers are speaking from their own experience and beliefs.
This seems to raise two questions in our readers' minds from time to time, which we will address separately below.
Of what value are FAIR's answers if they lack authority to speak for the Church?
Only the Church's duly authorized agents can speak officially on behalf of the Church or give official pronouncements which establish doctrine that is binding upon the Church. However, is this necessarily a problem when considering answers coming from a group such as FAIR?
There are many questions that people have, and there is plenty of benefit to having brothers and sisters in the faith "reason together" and learn from one another, and not expect to simply look to someone to give the one, final answer to any question. In this author's opinion, the Lord and Church leaders are wise to leave us to the exercise of working out these things and developing our mental and spiritual capacities to gain more understanding.
While the responses to issues offered by FAIR volunteers are not official statements by the Church, we believe them to be consistent with the Church's official teachings and are given by faithful, active, believing LDS members. These responses need not carry an official endorsement to be true or helpful in answering questions.
It is important to keep in mind that speaking as an authorized representative is not the same as speaking authoritatively. FAIR does not present itself as being authorized by the Church to speak on its behalf and declare or clarify points of doctrine and therefore is not an authorized representative of the Church. However, we do attempt to speak authoritatively by providing answers that use the most up-to-date information from LDS and non-LDS sources, and that reference the most authoritative statements from our leadership on a particular subject. As such, FAIR attempts to speak authoritatively on matters to the best of our ability but specifically disavows any claim of speaking on behalf of the Church.
FAIR's main mission is to answer criticisms about the Church, and we can certainly do so based on what we know, can study, and reason, as well as what the Spirit guides us to say as we prayerfully consider these issues, without necessarily receiving this as an official calling or going to the First Presidency to speak on each and every issue.
If FAIR is not an official voice for the Church, to whom do I turn for the official answer to my question?
In the early days of the Church, it was more common for the local members to ask Joseph Smith for his teachings on various matters. Obviously, the logistics involved in running a church of 500 members is rather different than it is with a church of many millions, and it is unreasonable to expect the First Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve to be able to teach all the individual members who have questions. The Church, of course, does make official doctrinal statements, but generally only on significantly important "core" issues. There is much room for all of us to study and learn independently and in local groups.
Beyond that, we do not need a "thus saith the Lord" answer to every question. We at FAIR sustain and support the leaders of the Church and follow their direction in matters of doctrine and the operation of the Church, but that doesn't mean we must look to someone else to provide us with the answer to every question we have. The Lord Himself commanded us:
For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.
Verily, I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness;
For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves. . . .[15]
Is it a mistake to assume that at least some of these good works that we are to be engaged in include studying the gospel and striving to learn more through the scriptures, personal prayer, discussions with each other, and by reading the best books? We think not.
Along with not expecting us to remain idle until explicitly commanded to do something, the Lord expects us to seek knowledge and learn and grow without simply being told what to think about everything.
Many problems which members encounter often stem from the mistaken belief that what they have been told my someone in the Church is somehow the Church position, or an official stance of the Church. When they encounter problems, they assume that the Church is in error—in fact, the error may be in what others have presumed is the Church's official position—on many issues, the Church has no official position.
Further,
Whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the resurrection.
And if a person gains more knowledge and intelligence in this life through his diligence and obedience than another, he will have so much the advantage in the world to come.[16]
An important part of the process of gaining this knowledge and intelligence is working diligently to study and learn, and not simply hoping someone else will tell us the answers to memorize.
Members of FAIR, teachers among the membership of the Church, and even our Church leaders have the latitude to hold and express their best understanding of various topics, even to publish books (e.g., Elder Bruce R. McConkie's Mormon Doctrine). Since none of these talks, lessons, papers, blogs, conversations, or books have been accepted into the canon, they are not binding as 'the official word of the Church itself.' Does that mean they are useless to help us gain more understanding? No, there's much we can learn from each other, even if we're imperfect in our understanding along the way.
But if I want an official answer, how do I get it?
Interested parties should realize that for many issues, there simply is no official Church position. On questions of history, for example, the Church has very few official positions or perspectives. While the Church insists that Joseph Smith did see God the Father and Jesus Christ, did translate the Book of Mormon, and did receive the restored priesthood, it has no official doctrine or position on the historical details surrounding these events. The Church will, for example, insist that the priesthood was restored. The Church may not, by contrast, have an official position on where that restoration occurred, what led to it, or even upon which date it happened.
Official doctrine is usually easy to determine. When FAIR is aware of an official doctrine or position statement, we attempt to provide it, with references so interested readers can check the sources for themselves. In all other cases, we try to describe the spectrum of LDS thought on a given issue, while noting that more than one point of view is held by faithful members of the Church.
Key sources |
|
|||
Wiki links |
||||
FAIR links |
|
|||
Online |
|
|||
Video |
|
|||
Print |
|
|||
Navigators |
Critical sources |
|
Notes
- ↑ C. S. Lewis, "Learning in War-Time," in The Weight of Glory and Other Addresses (New York: Macmillan, 1965), 27-28; cited by James S. Jardine, “Consecration and Learning,” in On Becoming a Disciple-Scholar, edited by Henry B. Eying (Bookcraft, Salt Lake, 1995), 77.
- ↑ Neal A. Maxwell, "'All Hell Is Moved," in 1977 Devotional Speeches of the Year (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 1977), 179.
- ↑ Dallin H. Oaks, The Lord’s Way, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1991), 92.
- ↑ Neal A. Maxwell, Deposition of a Disciple (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1976), 49.
- ↑ Cited by Neal A. Maxwell, "Discipleship and Scholarship," Brigham Young University Studies 32 no. 3 (1992), 5. PDF link
- ↑ Neal A. Maxwell, cited in Gilbert W. Scharffs, "Some people say it is best to leave alone materials that claim to 'expose' the Church and its teachings. What counsel has been given on this? How do we respond when a friend comes to us with questions found in such materials?," Ensign (January 1995): 60 (scroll half-way down).off-site
- ↑ Neal A Maxwell, A More Excellent Way: Essays on Leadership for Latter-day Saints (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1967), 62.
- ↑ C. S. Lewis, "Learning in War-Time," in The Weight of Glory and Other Addresses (New York: Macmillan, 1965), 27-28; cited by James S. Jardine, “Consecration and Learning,” in On Becoming a Disciple-Scholar, edited by Henry B. Eying (Bookcraft, Salt Lake, 1995), 77.
- ↑ C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics, edited by Walter Hooper, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), 103.
- ↑ See, for example: Gordon B. Hinckley, "Come and Partake," Ensign (May 1986): 46.off-site; D. Todd Christofferson, "The Redemption of the Dead and the Testimony of Jesus," Ensign (November 2000): 9.off-site; Boyd K. Packer, "We Believe All That God Has Revealed," Ensign (May 1974): 93.off-site. Other references to Nibley can be found by searching the on-line database.
- ↑ "DNA and the Book of Mormon," lds.org (16 February 2006). off-site.
- ↑ "Response to DVD," lds.org (29 March 2007). off-site. The FAIR response is at the top of the column on the left.
- ↑ The terms were originated by Jason Gallentine, who identifies himself as "Dr. Shades" on an anti-Mormon discussion board.
- ↑ John Gee, in 2018 Annual Report for the BYU Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship PDF link pg. 47-8 (accessed 30 May 2019)
- ↑ D&C 58꞉26-28
- ↑ D&C 130꞉18-19