Blake said:
“Well, you are now because after his admission was pointed to by several (including in my Sunstone articles) that the DNA evidence could easily be explained by assimlation of a small group into the larger population, Signature Books excised the statement from its web-site and re-designed his response. Such are the vagaries and theatrics of the internet.”

TOm:
I was not aware that Southerton had been edited to support certain folk’s faith based beliefs. Here is what I have been quoting (and you quoted) from Southerton’s pre-edited comments,

“In 600 BC there were probably several million American Indians living in the Americas. If a small group of Israelites, say less than thirty, entered such a massive native population, it would be very hard to detect their genes today.” — Simon Southerton

Before I ever heard of a DNA case against the BOM, I had accepted that 30 Isrealites had interjected themselves into a large native culture. The BOM demands this. So when Southerton, in my opinion the only remotely qualified of the two famous DNA critics, made the above statement, DNA was no longer of any concern for the truth claims of the BOM. It was neither positive nor negative.

Charity, TOm

Now, I am not saying that Flew has become a Christian, he has clearly not. I am not even saying that I find his reason for theism to be the best reason to be a theist. I do however believe, that he points to a strong argument for theism that comes from evidence available to all (as opposed to evidence only available to the individual person).

I have followed Flew some and it seems to me that if he were to read Blake’s two volumes of Exploring Mormon Thought, some of his reasons for rejecting Christianity would be removed. Perhaps he could be a LDS who thinks like Blake!

Charity, TOm

In today’s climate, you have to do something very extreme to get excommunicated or disfellowshipped.

I’ve tried to be responsible and fair, and I don’t feel at risk at all.

That’s how I feel, anyway.

Thanks for sharing your perspective. I wish we could all have the ideal discussion on Mormonism. I doubt it will happen, but the best thing that has happened IMHO is the internet. Information is proliferating. Discussions are happening. On the whole I think this is positive.

I am astounded, and allow me to gush if I may, at John’s achievement here. Richard Bushman. Wow. Congratulations to you, John. This has been a big treat for me. Although I do not agree with Bushman on a few things, he is a scholar of great stature and a real gentleman. Thanks should go to him for being such a generous person with his time and views.

I would like to point something else out. Today on NPR’s Science Friday an administrator from NASA appeared on the show to talk about the recent system failure on the Hubble. A caller asked him whether he thought that current funding for NASA was sufficient. He wouldn’t share his opinion because he was appearing as a representative of NASA.

The advantage of leaving Mormon scholarship as far outside of the Church’s purview as possible is that we can hear Bushman come on Mormon Stories and share his point of view. Naturally, he is circumspect about what he says, but I sincerely doubt we would have such a thing as a Mormon Stories Bushman interview if the LDS Church were half as oppressive as some people imagine it or they truly decided to control scholarship.

I can’t say that I have heard anything about John’s impending disciplinary court, but I shouldn’t speak for him.

The Apologetic site is open for discussion and I want to encourage you to bring your ideas over there..just identify yourself by name and have a conversation with the posters. I look forward to it. http://www.mormonapologetics.org

The times they are a changing inside the lds church…

In regards to your post #125, I would say that I can agree with you to some extent. However, the Ensign is not for debate, it is for instruction and faith affirmation. However, people who claim to want more openness in the lds church should allow free and open debate on their own website…and this is my point with Jeff. For example someone on his site got a little annoyed with John for being to pro-lds, saying that John is doing the work for the general authorities. And then the poster slammed the lds church’s money connection in the same thread.

Will there be honest debate about this? No. I don’t think so…but who knows maybe I will be mildly surprised.

The lds have free and open discussions on their webpages…there is a certain level of debate…the information is getting out there in intense discussion. I only ask the same on countermo sites.

Now the Bushman book and the interview. I found nothing that would shake my faith, if I were a active member of the church. And yes, such information should be out there and Bushman confirms this. It will happen.

I think that you are correct. But I also think that it will come. There are bits and pieces coming out and as I understand it, Dessert Bookshops do have books that address issues of history, including the Bushman book. Not to mention the discussions that go on at BYU and the various seminars that have occured during the Joseph Smith 200th anniversary year.

Also, members do have access to books and materials, if they seek them. But I do agree with you. I think that what is needed is a more intensive investigator program that is similiar to the Catholic Church’s program. It is a year long program that explains much about the doctrine of the catholic church. And I do believe that the lds church could organize a ‘Problems’ class that discusses controversial issues.

When my daughter listened to the Ann Wilder podcast about polygamy and Joseph Smith she had no problem because the story made sense to her with just some explanation from me.

But as strange as this may sound I do think that the Joseph Smith and the hat story is more faith confirming than the other stories that one comes across. Lets face it, anyone that tries to organize a church falsely, and issues the book of mormon, and seeks members would come up with a better story than the hat and stones.

As such, the translation must have happened just as he said…with a hat and stones. Interesting.

I agree that the Bushman biography is a milestone, and there are other independent scholars who are coming out with interesting work. The fact that Bushman will not be disciplined for his scholarship is a milestone too. Still, the Church has done little to address the challenges posed by the proliferation of challenging material on the internet. This material represents an educational challenge that the Church ought to rise to meet in a positive way instead of leaving the whole burden of the effort of addressing it to well-meaning but sometimes ill-equiped and ill-tempered individual scholars and amateurs. FARMS and FAIR are not evidence of a Church educational effort, for all of the interesting things they bring to the table.

Click here–> >>>>HERE

…and please read it this time.

For many of us, this has not been the case and the GA’s put emphasis on love and not rejection. Do some people reject the person who leaves? I think so but they are in the wrong and the lds church does not condone such behavior.

However, such generalizations seem to work for post and exmormons.

The point of my last post was a simple one. You call for more openness within the church but you do not allow for openness on your site. Why the contradiction? I would think that your case for more openness would have more teeth if your website valued its own openness. Do you see my point? Those who have the misfortune to post a positive about the church on your site are hounded by the hard-core posters on your site, especially if the poster sticks around for any length of time. Hence, you have a small group of likeminded people (something that you may intone criticism about the lds church as being an institution of like minded individuals), on your own site.

Now I am in agreement that there should be more openness in relating to lds history. And I do believe that such openness is coming. I think that you will find that many lds people know specific (unknown)details about the history of lds church. But they are not discussed in the church meetings unless someone brings them up.

Lets face it, the Bushman book is a milestone in LDS scholarship. And more books are on the way, if I understood the posts on Mormon Apologetics and Discussion threads.

And Jeff, we all need to be positive about this. Plus, we need to be positive about such sites as Mormon stories, as a place for democratic lds discussion. Now if only we could get the ex and postmo sites to do the same, well…maybe someday.

Adcama says: “Based on the lack of feedback facilitated by the church on these issues, I had to chuckle (privately and respectfully of course) when Elder Holland, last conference, said something to the effect of church leaders being absolutely in touch with issues surrounding the church. Maybe I’m the one who is out of touch, but that the church knows about the facts/official position issue (and the number of people who are effected and leaving the church over it) and has done nothing to correct it….makes me really wonder.”

Adcama: I appreciate and admire your for both pointing out the problems you see in Mormonism and especially that you’re suggestion some possible solutions. I can’t say the same about myself. I tend to overlook the latter.

Well, you are now because after his admission was pointed to by several (including in my Sunstone articles) that the DNA evidence could easily be explained by assimlation of a small group into the larger population, Signature Books excised the statement from its web-site and re-designed his response. Such are the vagaries and theatrics of the internet.

I feel like you are representing a degree of certainty on some issues that I and many others would disagree are as finally settled as you indicate. I would say that in your opinion the evidence weighs in favor of Mormonism. In my opinion you’re wrong, but respect your choice because I don’t think its an uninformed one.

Now, I’d like to get specific. I’m interested in any information you can direct me to that describes the issues your raise about non-replicating DNA, and I think you also imply that there’s something about self-replicating DNA I should be aware of.

Regarding what I’ll call the “rosy geography model” of life I’m glad you read my exit story so you understand better how I arrived where I am in life. I agree that my expectation that life should work better for me because I was paying my tithing was a niave, unrealistic expecation, but that belief was a product of my Mormon education. I now view at is a silly expectation.

I want to point out that while it was the tithing issue that was my trigger issue, it’s not the reason I left the Church. It only set me in a frame of mind to be more objective about Mormonism and I’ve found that when many people reach that same point, regarless of what their trigger issue was, they also end up leaving.

If you feel I’ve dismissed any of your points you’d like me to address let me know and I’ll do my best to respond to them.

I agree that there ought to be a forum for open discussion of these issues somewhere within the realm of “average” mormonism (as I said before, whether that’s an institute class, more accurate cirriculum or an online tutorial:-). That we’re discussing extremely technical issues here when a large percentage of church members who still consider themselves mormons would have no idea what were talking about (no offense, arrogance, etc intended) underscores my point – the church is teaching a version of history (and since they are for some reason linked, theology) that is not up to par with the facts. And yes, Blake, I think enough people on both can agree on the material facts of our history for purposes of my position….despite their various interpretations.

That we have such talent, historical detail and better context of our religion (as is evidenced by Bushman’s book, various and sundry scholarly studies, Exmormon perspective and healthy skepticism) the tragety and huge problem for me is that we continue to use a fairy tale version of events for our core cirriculum. We don’t even dare to bring up the facts in a church context….but we expect (implied not physical force) total obedience, compliance and dedication from lay membership. To me, that is the issue here – as interesting as the philosophical, scientific and technical arguments are.

I long for the day when I see a suggestion box next the tithing envelopes, the encouragement of an open door policy in leadership manuals, a discussion this topic on the church web site or a substantive, open and honest, give and take on any of these issues (historical, scientific, etc) in priesthood leadership meeting (when the stake president, or sometimes visiting GA asks “are there any questions”).

Based on the lack of feedback facilitated by the church on these issues, I had to chuckle (privately and respectfully of course) when Elder Holland, last conference, said something to the effect of church leaders being absolutely in touch with issues surrounding the church. Maybe I’m the one who is out of touch, but that the church knows about the facts/official position issue (and the number of people who are effected and leaving the church over it) and has done nothing to correct it….makes me really wonder.

Why me: “But Jeff are you not guity of sheltering opinions on your own site? Do you also involve yourself in ‘expression limitation’ to protect your flock?

I am curious about your reply. Lets not call one kettle whiter than the other.”

Why Me: Good to see you’re still alive and kicking but not so good that you’re up to your old tricks. I think John’s intent is to keep discussions at least somewhat related to the topic at the top of this thread, or at least moving in a direction that people seem to want to pursue as the discussion unfolds. As was the case on our website, after allowing you months to freely jump in to discussions and share your thought, and after repeated warning when you were being disrespectful and dismissive to some people, only then was your membership cancelled. I

It was determined that your repeated attempts to sidetrack discussions, only for the purpose of raising a ruckus (similar to how you now seem to be disrupting this discussion what would call an attempt at tossing in a red-herring) were to disruptive and only then were you banned. TBM’s are still and always have been welcome as long as they will be respectful and follow the same rules everyone else does. I think your a good example of just how far we’ll bend over backwards to accommodate people before we send them away.

Where is true debate in the Ensign? At Sunday School? In the FARMS Review?

There are places where people conduct real debate, and places they do not. The latter are not necessarily illegitimate. They perform a function for the community.

The question should be “does a community provide any outlet for open discussion”? I think it ought to. I am not trying to provide a ‘tit for tat’ comparison of the post/ex-Mormon community and the Church. I’m just stating my views.

I think that you need to do more explaining about the Bushman critique you posted. First, the individual posted his thoughts about Bushman on your website and then received overwhelming support from the postmos who were posting on the thread. Unfortunately, a true and debatable critique from the posters was generally not allowed since TBMs are banned from your site, or should I say, anyone who may lean to a more positive perspective. Hence, what the critic received was a one-sided analysis of his work without much of a challenge. (sound familiar?)

I would not call this fair. Also, for all your critique of mormonism, one can find similiar extremes on your site. Where is true debate? Where is discussion from different perspectives and points of view that may include a lds perspective? I fail to see them.

The lds church has a history and it can be read. Now I would agree that the lds church needs to be more forthcoming and if you spend some time at the Mormon apologetic and Discussion site, you will find that many viewpoints are exchanged about church history and ‘whitewashing’. To a lesser extent the lds church needs to do the same.

But Jeff are you not guity of sheltering opinions on your own site? Do you also involve yourself in ‘expression limitation’ to protect your flock?

I am curious about your reply. Lets not call one kettle whiter than the other.

TOm says:
I offered 5 things. I was not saying that they created certainty only that the Mormon or theistic view is more probable than the responses (if any) to these things. I am strongly of the opinion that the lion’s share of the world and the majority of scholars have never even considered them so I am not sure why you think they have been dismissed.
Concerning Mormonism, of the folks who have discussed the witnesses with any rigor or NHM with any rigor, the majority are LDS. The vast majority of scholars with any training in these matters who have addressed these issues are also LDS. There are many fans of Dan Vogel who adopt his view of the witnesses and many fans of Dan Peterson who adopt his view, but of those who have looked at the sources, most remain LDS and many offer apologetic reasons for their faith.

Jeff says:
One atheist ‘defector’ doesn’t carry much weight either when compared to the majority of atheists who have considered the same issues and conclude differently.

TOm:
The majority of Atheists have not addressed the issue of self-replicating DNA, but my statement is that the Atheist position is weakened by the arguments concerning self-replicating DNA. Some atheist do not get past the huge non-Mormon theist problem of evil and a few do not get past the present Mormon theist problem of evil, but this has nothing to do with self-replicating DNA.

Concerning cancer, wealth, and “God taking a vacation.”:
I read your departure from Mormonism discussion and your latest post. You have approached Mormonism radically differently than I have. I am a convert. I have never expected that my life would be full of cherries solely as a product of my faith. I am not a fan of what Protestants call the “health and wellness gospel.” I strongly suspect that those closest to God sometimes get the hardest lots in life.
I respect folks with what seems to me to be very fundamentalist views even though I do not consider myself to hold such views. You and a number of my current Mormon brothers and sisters seem to hold fundamentalist views associated with Mormonism (you as one who rejects it and they as ones who believe it).
I said earlier in this thread that fundamentalist views virtually always gives way under the non-black and white world that we live in. However, faith does not always depart when fundamentalist assumptions are dashed. There is a great book called Stages of Faith. Stage 4 occurs for many when they feel the cognitive dissonance that results when things they thought were black and white turn out to be much more gray. Some folks cease to be theists and some folks cease to fundamentalists. Some folks never get beyond stage three and some folks return there because stage 4 hurts. It is my opinion that folks who work through the historical difficulties in Mormonism, Christianity, and the Constitutional Congress emerge with a significantly less black and white view.

Concerning DNA, am I under a misapprehension when I say that Southernton (who while not a human geneticist is much better versed than Murphy in this subject) has acknowledged that the DNA evidence does little to disprove the prevailing limited geography model?

Trevor,
You said:
Of course, the LDS community is no more or less respectable than any other religious community that roughly fits within the mores of modern Western society. It’s a shame that this realization does not generally occur to or cut it with many people. I generally find it humorous that Christians criticize Mormonism, when there was a time that Christianity was arguably as controversial as Mormonism when it first appeared. It is odd how a couple thousand years of tradition furnish such legitimacy to stories that have even less historical foundation than Joseph Smith’s First Vision.

TOm:
This aligns with something that I have generally believed for a long time. Since I am quite convinced I will fail to explain away what I know of God, I guess it is good I have chosen Mormonism.
I am not sure how to move the atheist to theism, but there are many who have success at this. From a belief in God, I think Mormonism make the most sense of the available data.

Charity, TOm

Trevor said: “I generally find it humorous that Christians criticize Mormonism, when there was a time that Christianity was arguably as controversial as Mormonism when it first appeared. It is odd how a couple thousand years of tradition furnish such legitimacy to stories that have even less historical foundation than Joseph Smith’s First Vision.”

Thanks again for your insights. I have to agree with you that in general Mormonism is no better or no worse than other religions. However, I see Mormonism as more dogmatic and therefore (in my opinion) more oppressive and intrusive in people’s lives than say, the Episcopal flavor of Christianity.

I have to admit that one thing that really gets me going at times is when I see, as you touched on, a Christian running down Mormonism. I can’t help but picture it as people in glass houses throwing stones at people in glass houses.

Thanks for the background. What I found most useful about this piece was that the author showed how Bushman’s rhetoric tried to make a critic’s position appear unreasonable. I see the non-believer critic’s position as being no less tenable than the believing proponent’s position. I believe that Bushman wrote those sentiments about critics of Smith in good faith. They are an expression of his belief, but it is fair to point out that these are his assumptions, and they don’t approach anything like factual truth.

Bushman has been fairly open about his purpose, which is partly to make Mormonism more respectable in the eyes of the non-member. Personally, I disagree with his approach on some matters–particularly the way he deals with Joseph Smith’s magical practices. If I were an expert in American History, I would pursue the topic in publication. I have to attend to getting things published in my own field first.

Speaking of making Mormonism sound reasonable, it is my belief that this is basically what apologetics is all about–making Mormonism appear respectable and rhetorically dismantling those who try to achieve the opposite. For those of you who want historical perspective on this activity, go and read the polemical and apologetic literature regarding Christianity from Greco-Roman antiquity. Once you do, you’ll see how little things have changed.

Of course, the LDS community is no more or less respectable than any other religious community that roughly fits within the mores of modern Western society. It’s a shame that this realization does not generally occur to or cut it with many people. I generally find it humorous that Christians criticize Mormonism, when there was a time that Christianity was arguably as controversial as Mormonism when it first appeared. It is odd how a couple thousand years of tradition furnish such legitimacy to stories that have even less historical foundation than Joseph Smith’s First Vision.

I’d like to clarify something about the “unruly tone” of the Rough Stone Rolling critic I linked near the top of this thread. I agree, it is a bit unruly but I should explain the context within it was written. It actually originated as a long discussion thread where the author would read a chapter then post his comments among some friends and we would comment on his observations. Since he was among friends he in good fun titled the thread, Reading Rough Stone Rolling, So You Don’t Have To.

I later encouraged the author to compile his discussion forum posts into one document which resulted in the form that it now is. At the beginning the author touches on the origins of the document but I can see how it doesn’t quite explain it as clearly (hopefully) as above.

Correct me if I’m wrong but I think “serious assements” is also “merely a label,” as you say.

Blake said: “Frankly, Priddis arguments were the worst examples of name-calling and simply enaging in straw-man tactics you could point to — and you have the gaul in doing so to criticize FARMS?”

Blake, I didn’t read the entire “Blake Ostler’s Errors” document — It’s quite long — but from my limited engineer’s perspective I can’t say I found anything that was what I would call name calling. I could easily have missed something though. And from what I read, the arguments seem to me to be well reasoned.

Howeve, not being thoroughly acquainted with the subject I’m not in a position to say whether the arguments are of a straw-man nature as you charge but I believe I understand the term well enough that I can point out several straw-man arguments of yours in this thread if you would like me to.

Now as to this comment of yours,

“and you have the gaul in doing so to criticize FARMS?”

Please read again what I said. The link to the “Blake Ostler’s Errors” document was not in response to the quality of FARMS material it was in response to a statement of yours where you were giving one of your papers high praise. I only wanted to show that not everyone agrees that your arguments are necessarily well reasoned.

I think it’s clear that the references are germane to this dicussion because they were both in response to assertions or points you raised.

Finally, what the heck has that got to do with lines of evidnece from form-critical analysis that I mentioned? What you say is not merely totally irrelevant, it is simply to dredge up examples of those who engage in precisely what you want to condemn. I responded to Priddis’ arguments on this blog some time ago — he couldn’t even get the basic argument that I made right and he attacked a complete straw man. Is that your idea of an argument that has merit? You can see that prior exchange here: http://mormonstories.org/?p=140#comment-26920

Frankly, Priddis arguments were the worst examples of name-calling and simply enaging in straw-man tactics you could point to — and you have the gaul in doing so to criticize FARMS?

A person who believes Joseph Smith’s story about the discovery and translation of the plates have been provided with enough interesting data to support the plausibility that the text *might* be ancient in some way. Mr. Ostler’s theory of the modern expansion of an ancient text is one such example of an argument providing plausibility. What I am looking for is archaeological and textual data of such a weight that it overwhelms the case for 19th century origins. From my understanding of Joseph Smith’s environment, the book fits there pretty perfectly.

In arguments for and against something like the Book of Mormon, an issue like the antiquity of the text is only of secondary importance. Of primary importance, and I am seconding John D here, is belief or non-belief. In my view, neither belief nor non-belief can ultimately be vindicated by historical arguments. Theology is grounded in the art of philosophy for a reason. It begins with certain set assumptions and works from those assumptions by certain rules. A logical argument does not vindicate the base assumptions as much as it demonstrates its own logic or fails to.

What I regret most about the tussle between apologists and critics of the LDS Church is the apparent polarization of Mormon thought into two camps. Before I quit attending the LDS Church, I was a believer in Mormonism who did not accept the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

Very few apologists or critics were respectful of that position, since they not only invest so much effort in the game of making their position more plausible, but also because on some level they really do tie this plausibility game to a conviction that greater plausibility vindicates the truth of their belief. To me, it is nothing more than a war of words and a tumult of opinions.

I have removed myself from Church activity, partly because I am tired of feeling pressured to choose sides in debates that are now pointless to me. I don’t see the questions about the history of the Church being a matter of absolute truth or it being absolutely untrue.

I was dismayed that the Church seems to have invested a lot in making the interpretation of history such a powerful marker of appropriate religious identity and membership. I would hope that in 21st-century America we could move past such silliness. From what I can see the ex-Mormon crowd are no better about avoiding this nonsense.

History is far more complicated than that, and arguments in favor of or against the “factual correctness” of Joseph Smith’s account of the First Vision in 1838, for example, are laughable. The 1838 account is Joseph Smith’s representation of an experience that occurred in the early 1820s. Period. It stands as evidence of his interpretation of his experience nearly two decades after the fact. There you have it.

What we see a Bushman or a Brodie doing are shading and interpreting such evidence in one direction or the other. One historian takes a believer’s stance; the other does not.

There are only two kinds of arguments with regard to Mormon history that are of religious significance that have any interest to me. The first is the argument about Mormonism’s place in the Christian tradition. The second is Mormonism’s development as a unique movement. The only other kind of historical argument about Mormonism that is interesting to me concerns Mormonism as a religious phenomenon as described from a secular perspective.

I appreciated Ostler’s work on the Book of Mormon as an expansion of an ancient text. I also thought there were genuinely interesting thoughts included in that criticism of Bushman’s biography that Jeff linked us to (regardless of its unruly tone). What is sadly amusing is the theatrics of righteous indignation on either side in response to all of these discussions. All they achieve is the placement of identity boundaries. They don’t really move the discussion forward.

But we are all here for different reasons. I suppose this activity serves a purpose that is important for someone. My purpose is to grapple with my own Mormon identity where I am today, and to enjoy discussing issues of Mormon history. Thanks to all of you for keeping this discussion lively and thought provoking. Thanks also to John for providing a banquet for thought and a forum for this discussion.

Blake said: “Finally, I believe that there are in fact substantive arguments in favor of the Church that are very persuasive and I see them just being ignored by critics because they don’t know how to respond. For example, I have written about the prophetic call pattern culled out by form-critical analysis in 1 Ne. 1.”

Blake, with all due respect, not everyone is as generous as you in their evaluation of the quality of your arguments. See the following, titled:

Blake Ostler’s Errors:
It Takes a Lot of Wishful Thinking
to Make DNA Lineages Go Away

Not everyone is as generous as you in their evaluation of the quality of FARMS publications:

“Critics declare that FARMS sometimes uses circular logic in their arguments. Similarly, some critics have suggested that FARMS’ reasoning is backwards from usual scientific of scholarly practices: FARMS arrives at their faith-based conclusion first, then afterwards seeks out supporting evidence. Dr. Simon G. Southerton, a former Latter-day Saint who has published a book [3] disputing FARMS’ claims about the origins of Native Americans, said, “I was amazed at the lengths that FARMS went to in order to prop up faith in the Book of Mormon. I felt that the only way I could be satisfied with FARMS explanations was to stop thinking.”

…and…

“Others have accused FARMS of engaging in mean-spirited polemics. Even some devout Mormons have been bothered by what they see as ad hominem attacks: attacking someone personally, rather than analyzing the merits of their ideas. Especially often, FARMS is accused of labeling someone an “anti-Mormon”, and then discounting their works as biased, based largely on this pronouncement. In a speech offered before the Sunstone Symposium (titled “Why I No Longer Trust the FARMS Review of Books”), John Hatch said, “After reading the (FARMS) reviews myself, it appears to me, and is my opinion, that FARMS is interested in making Mormonism’s past appear as normal as possible to readers by attacking history books that discuss complex or difficult aspects of the church’s past. As one who hopes to some day contribute to the body of the New Mormon History, I am deeply troubled by what I see as continued efforts to attack honest scholarly work.”

Both of the above are found at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FARMS

Jeff,
I was being too obscure.
I knew you were referring to Blake’s lawyer profession when you spoke of “theatrics.”

I was saying two things.
1. I am an Engineer and I do not see “theatrics” in the FARMS arguments.
2. You have taken offence from Blake at least twice on this thread when I saw nothing in Blake’s words to cause that offence. However suggesting that Blake’s profession is significantly associated with theatrics could in fact be offensive, but I was not sure if he would take it that way. Fortunately it seems he has not.

The positive case for the BOM so radically eclipses the problems with the BOM in my opinion that it can support the BOA which is a net negative (IMO) on the truth claims of the CoJCoLDS.
I have seen reference (probably by Blake) to at least one of the things that he mentioned in his post, but I have not seen a response by LDS critics. As two evangelical Christians put it, you are “losing the battle and don’t know it.” The reason you do not know it is because it is clear to you that the top 10 negative things concerning the truth claims of the CoJCoLDS are in fact evidence against the truth claims of Mormonism. It is not surprising to me that the top 10 negative things are in fact negative and if one looks at these and the attempted responses, one will find the truth claims of the CoJCoLDS weak. But in the face of overwhelming silence, the top 10 positive things are amazingly convincing. If you search for the rare voice that breaks the silence, it is still my opinion that the positive things are very positive. On the whole (positive and negative weighed) I think Mormonism is far better explained by an appeal to God than be any naturalistic explanation.

Charity, TOm

Tom said: “As I mentioned, I am an engineer. I think generally theatrics do not get me too far. I am not sure how I would take it where you to suggest to me that as a lawyer theatrics were a mainstay of my profession, but perhaps that will not be viewed as less than benign.

It is not about theatrics.
The BOM detractors who excuse the witnesses of the BOM have a weak case. BOM believers win the battle of the witnesses.
The BOM detractors who excuse the NHM location in the BOM have a weak case. BOM believers win the battle of NHM.

Non-theists who engage Van Til’s argument for the presumption of logic being a foundation of any argumentation and this entailing theism lose (IMO). He says, “Atheist presupposes theism.”
Non-theists who explain the fine tuning argument by appealing to multi-verses or some as yet to be found GPC (three fundamental constants in physics) restrictor component lose.
Non-theists who try to explain the existence of non-replicating DNA, lose. One of the preeminent atheist philosophers of the 20th and 21st century became a theist because the data associated with self-replicating DNA led him there (Anthony Flew).

When I say “lose” I mean that concerning these areas only, the Mormon or Theist has the probable explanation. The anti-Mormon or the Atheist has the weaker, “It could be untrue” position. This is all data and review of facts and none theatrics.”

Tom, I disagree with the degree of certainty that you assign to the issues above. They are opinions not shared by the lion’s share of the world but more importantly are not shared by the majority of scholars of the world.

One atheist ‘defector’ doesn’t carry much weight either when compared to the majority of atheists who have considered the same issues and conclude differently.

I appreciate your personal experience and I appreciate that you point out that it could be your mind playing tricks. I’ve had similar experience and one in particular that I still contend opened my mind to something that I couldn’t have known through my mind playing tricks. For years I concluded that the experience could only have come from God and still value the experience as something more than my mind playing tricks. I tell you in all honesty and sincerity that I can, that that particular experience happened on the day that I finally chose to leave Mormonism. It was that experience, coupled with all the evidence that I’d studied in the previous two years that led me to leave. That was 13 years ago. Life has been very good for me since then. I’m more at peace with life and what happens after than I ever was as a Mormon. I’ve been much better financially since leaving (even if you set aside the 10% raise I gave myself when I quite paying tithing). I think my family keeps expecting my good fortune change any day now because of what I chose 13 years ago. I hope they’re getting tired of waiting.

Last year I found out I had cancer. A few months later I learned through a bishop friend here at work that someone in his ward who was my age found out he also had the same cancer. The bishop friend wanted to pick my brain because for some reason I was fortunate enough that although it was the same cancer mine was 100% cured. He wanted to know why so he could maybe help use the information to help his member. Unfortunately I wasn’t able to offer anything that could help because I was cured because I found out so early. His ward member found out to late and will likely be dealing with it until it brings his life to an early end. Why was I ‘blessed’ but the Mormon guy wasn’t? I can’t answer that. I was just lucky I guess. I realize that someday my health will fail me. It’s inevitable for all of us. Maybe then my family will finally say, “Aha! See! We told you so!”

TOm, how can you and I arrive at different places based on similar experiences? I don’t know. We just did. But I value your experience and your choice and your right to your conclusions as I think/hope you value my right to the same.

Well then why all of the cheesy, damning, scary pictures for articles on your web-site [grin]? However, what you call “theatrics” is in fact simply a response to some very intelligent people who claimed they cold show that God’s existence is logically impossible if evil exists. I agree it has no value for people like you because you already accept the conclusion. I brought it up just to show the difference between possible, plausible, probable and certain anyway.

However, I believe that most FARMS pieces are defensive in nature in this same respect — they attempt to show that arguments made against the Church are not valid. So they aren’t offering proof of anything but merely pointing out that the arguments don’t lead to the conclusions the critics claim they do.

Finally, I believe that there are in fact substantive arguments in favor of the Church that are very persuasive and I see them just being ignored by critics because they don’t know how to respond. For example, I have written about the prophetic call pattern culled out by form-critical analysis in 1 Ne. 1. It is very clearly there and very difficult to account for on the view that Joseph Smith just made it up or got it out of his enviroment because knowledge of this form wasn’t in the environment. Numerous people have recognized a covenant renewal festival in Mosiah and at least three other places in the Book of Mormon that is really quite compelling. Again numerous people have independently recognized this form as well — but I cannot see how Joseph could possibly have divined it unless his story is taken seriously. There are four places in the Book of Mormon where Hebrew legal procedure is followed in detail. The Hebrew legal procedure is very different from ours and I don’t know anyone who just comes up with this procedure without being taught about it — but there it is in the Book of Mormon repeatedly (and demonstrably). I haven’t seen any explanation of these form-critical elements that doesn’t amount to the sheer failure to deal with the evidence: “well that’s just the way a person growing in New York in the early 1800s would write such a book.” Balderdash.

So until I get some good faith plausible explanation for what I believe requires taking Joseph Smith’s story very seriously, I’ll continue to assert that there is strong evidence that makes it very probable that he was a prophet.

My experience with FARMS is different than yours. It can be uneven; but there is some very good stuff there.

Tom said: As I mentioned, I am an engineer. I think generally theatrics do not get me too far. I am not sure how I would take it where you to suggest to me that as a lawyer theatrics were a mainstay of my profession, but perhaps that will not be viewed as less than benign.

Tom, unless I’m mistaken I believe I said I was referring to Blake when I was talking about theatrics and their value in the legal profession. I agree with you that theatrics won’t get an engineer very far.

It is not about theatrics.
The BOM detractors who excuse the witnesses of the BOM have a weak case. BOM believers win the battle of the witnesses.
The BOM detractors who excuse the NHM location in the BOM have a weak case. BOM believers win the battle of NHM.

Non-theists who engage Van Til’s argument for the presumption of logic being a foundation of any argumentation and this entailing theism lose (IMO). He says, “Atheist presupposes theism.”
Non-theists who explain the fine tuning argument by appealing to multi-verses or some as yet to be found GPC (three fundamental constants in physics) restrictor component lose.
Non-theists who try to explain the existence of non-replicating DNA, lose. One of the preeminent atheist philosophers of the 20th and 21st century became a theist because the data associated with self-replicating DNA led him there (Anthony Flew).

When I say “lose” I mean that concerning these areas only, the Mormon or Theist has the probable explanation. The anti-Mormon or the Atheist has the weaker, “It could be untrue” position. This is all data and review of facts and none theatrics.

FARMS spends most of its time arguing against criticisms. When FARMS argues for evidence, they tend to present a case that while occasionally (rarely) addressed by critics is not reversed in its strength. Critics who bother to enter the debate say, “perhaps this singular reference to ‘spiritual eyes’ should eclipse all the other concrete descriptions of seeing and feeling plates.” What a weak argument.
Now if we include the BOA and the apologetic response to such things on the scale, it moves in the other direction.

I am suggesting that all of this must be weighed. You are welcome to tell me that the BOA is a mess. I agree. But the BOM is so evidently more than can be explained by any fraud theory that the BOA rides on its coattails. If there was ever something that couldn’t possibly be true, then all the strength of the BOM might not matter, but I have not found such a thing.

Finally, I am quite certain that I have no idea why this is, but I know God. He loves me. I have spent some time exploring the human psyche and why it might trick me, but if it is only my “God gene,” I am quite unable to overcome its hold upon me. I would enjoy being one of the most capable and powerful creatures in the universe. I like be a human and see no need to believe that in reality God is so much greater than I am. But when God communicates to me things that I never would have supposed, it seems clear to me that God is there and He isn’t just part of my psyche. In the end this is why I could not cease to be a theist. But my Mormonism was quite secure for many years before God felt the need to communicate to me that I should be a LDS. For whatever reason, as I weigh data, Mormonism just makes more sense of the data than other theistic structures. But of course this is the data that include horses and Matthew’s misuse of the Old Testament.

I can respect your view that atheism and exMormonism is the best view of the data. I do not believe you have engaged the scientific and philosophic reasons for theism which I think should leave the atheist constantly looking for the certainty theists claim, but I could be wrong. Some do and are still atheists. I am still convinced that your appeal to “theatrics” means that you have missed the point of the responses to the problem of evil (and by analogy missed the point of most of what FARMS does).

Charity, TOm

“Tom said: The problem of evil is present by the atheist philosopher as a proof that God does not exist. The response is to show how this position was not proven.”

My guess is that you meant to say, “as evidence that God exists,” not “proof.” I don’t know of any atheist worth his salt who would claim that one can prove that God does not exist because – and I think this comes from formal logic – you can’t prove a negative. In an early post I pointed out how one can’t prove that people don’t live on Jupiter because even if I go there and look around and not find anyone I could always miss a spot or later discover that they do in fact live there but in a normally invisible state. One can only prove that they do exist by going there and discovering them. I’m sure I’m telling you something you already know but are maybe overlooking if I understand correctly what you’re saying.

Likewise, I can’t prove that God does not exist and we have yet to prove that he does exist. All we have is the evidence. My assessment of the evidence leads me to conclude that God’s existence is about as unlikely as the likelihood that people live on Jupiter…but someday I might be proven wrong. However, in all areas of my life where I’ve learned that relying on evidence, not possibilities, serves me best, I am feeling pretty confident that the evidence, or lack thereof hasn’t mislead me in my conclusion.

I tend to be a practical person and that might be why I ended up in the field I’m in, or maybe because the field I’m in has taught me to base important decisions more on evidence and less on “possibilities” I’ve been turned me into a more practical person. I’m not sure which is actually the case. At any rate, in terms of understanding what is and is not true I see little practical value in Blake’s logical exercise because, first he starts with the possibility that God exists, makes an assertion that I think is easy to disprove (that God does not exist) and ends up back at the beginning: Maybe God exists. It seems to me to be a good exercise in a classroom on logic but other than that I see no value in the exercise other than perhaps theatrical value. Blake in your field I can see where theatrical value is important, maybe even more important that evidence when your task is to try to convince a jury. In my field theatrics has no value – in fact it get in the way in discussions where the task is to arrive at the TRUE reason a product didn’t perform as expected. In areas where what really did or did not happen or what is or is not true are important theatrics have no place.

Blake, you point out, for instance, how you can demonstrate that Mormonism could possibly be true (or something to that effect). With all due respect, I see little practical value in that for the same reason I see little value in writing a paper that shows that people live on Jupiter could possibly be true..

Unfortunately, to a great extent, many Mormons look to FARMS for rebuttals to some of the information they are finding on the internet. Because their rebuttals are in my opinion (and I think in the opinion of non-Mormon scholars in general who even care to take a look) are heavy on theatrics and light on evidence, and in the end only demonstrates what we knew to begging with. I say, “unfortunately” because many people who go to FARMS for answers can’t tell the difference between theatrics (and personal attacks) and real evidence. It might fool some people but I’ve heard where it turns a lot of people off, and away, and they leave.

I say:
That is what I would have thought your position was. That is my position as well.

I think there are few issues self selected by critics that after they are addressed result in, “Mormonism is probably true.” I don’t expect critics to choose issues like this. However, things like “land of Jerusalem is not correct,” “no rivers in Arabia,” and “The Bible says man cannot become gods,” are examples of were I think the critics have offered things that ultimately do (or will eventually) become “Mormonism is probably true.”

Charity, TOm

There are a number of philosophical arguments designed to show that God does exist. The universe is ordered, therefore God as one who orders exists. If there is no explanation as to how an ordered universe could exist outside of God’s interference, then it would be proven that God exists. If someone can offer any reason to believe that an ordered universe can exist without God, then this would respond to the absolute argument.

There are dozens of arguments within science and philosophy designed to show that God exists. There are dozens of responses that postulate things. Things like multi-verses or a GPC restrictor respond to the “fine-tuning” argument.

It is my opinion that no anti-theist argument has proven God does not exist. No anti-Mormon argument has proven God is not at the head of Mormonism. It is also my opinion that no pro-theist argument has proven God exists and no pro-Mormon argument has proven God is at the head of Mormonism.

I see within critics of the church a desire to focus on those areas that critics offer to show that Mormonism could not have God at its head. These issues are self selected for their problematic nature concern Mormon truth claims. It seems quite reasonable that the weight of these things and the responses offered by apologist would make Mormonism unlikely. But it is not fair to spend all of ones time focusing on that which is problematic if one wants to assess the truth claims of Mormonism.

Some apologists (not really FARMS btw) seem to focus almost exclusively upon areas that apologists offer to show that Mormonism absolutely has God at its head. As critics poke holes in these absolute positions by offering theories about tin plates and Dartmouth library, the apologist will likely still think that the truth claims of Mormonism are much more likely than the offered responses.

To get a full picture all of these things need to be assessed.

Alternatively, one can become less concerned with the claims of True and False and just view Mormonism as a process for growth and development, but those that do this tend to be less vocal than those who see whitish grays and blackish grays as important.

Btw, let me just repeat this. I am an engineer not a philosopher, but it seems to me that this little distinction is pretty important for what you are questioning.

“(a) I can show Mormonism is true; (b) I can show that Mormonism is probable; (c) I can show that Mormonism is plausible; (d) I can show that Mormonism is possibly true. FARMS writers most often aim for (c), they sometimes argue either (d) or (b), but they have never, to my knowledge, argued for (a).”

Also the a* – d* are important. (a*) I can show Mormonism is false. (d*) I can show Mormonism is possible false.
I do not think anyone has succeeded at a* or a.
I think both critics and LDS apologists resort to d* or d on occasion.

Charity, TOm

You might want to join that discussion.

Jeff: “That seems rather circular to me Blake and a waste of time because but at the end of day what have you really established? That God’s existence is possible? What a waste of energy, because anything is possible. It’s possible that people live on Jupiter but it’s not very likely, given the evidence. And didn’t need to go in circles to arrive at that conclusion.”

Jeff, the point is simply a logical one. The argument that designed to show that God cannot exist if there is evil is not logically valid. That’s what it shows. I agree that it doesn’t establish anything except that an argument used to disprove God’s existence isn’t a valid argument — but that is valuable to the person who wonders if it is possible for God to exist if there is evil. So you agree that God’s existence is possible. So I assume you wouldn’t make the logical argument in question because you agree it isn’t valid — that’s all.

Jeff, I pointed out the difference to suggest that I wouldn’t expect you to address the issue as a philosopher in the technical manner that I do. I a sense I was suggesting there was nothing wrong with the way you approached it. From perspective it seems that you are quick to take offense.

“…the argument isn’t at all to establish God’s existence but to defeat an argument saying that God cannot possibly exist. Those are two very different propositions. However, it is useful to defeat this argument because so many had pontificated for so long that evil showed that God’s existence was just impossible.”

You start the above by saying that the argument isn’t at all to establish God’s existence and finish with saying that it shows how God’s existence is possible…which appears to me like an attempt to establish Gods existence even if you’ve only established that it’s possible.

That seems rather circular to me Blake and a waste of time because but at the end of day what have you really established? That God’s existence is possible? What a waste of energy, because anything is possible. It’s possible that people live on Jupiter but it’s not very likely, given the evidence. And didn’t need to go in circles to arrive at that conclusion.

“In fact, my DNA arguments are aimed at this kind of argument that DNA is an absolute disproof of the Book of Mormon. It isn’t. I probably could not argue for (b) and I know I can’t argue for (a) in the face of DNA evidence; but I believe there is a good case to be made for (c) and I am rather certain that I have established (d)”

I am wondering how limited the statement, “I probably could not argue for (b) … in the face of DNA evidence” is. [b = “I can show that Mormonism is probable”]

Do you mean that you believe that when placing DNA associated things on the scale, you cannot argue for b with DNA associated things?
Or do you mean that DNA evidence while not making BOM historicity impossible or even implausible does such damage that when ALL things are weighed you would not argue that Mormonism is “probable.”

I personally would agree with the first, DNA evidence does not make Mormonism more likely to be true, but I would not agree with the second. In fact, I think the responses to DNA issues have been sufficient that the hemispheric geography model should generally die (which it did in many circles long before) but the local geography model is largely unfazed.

As I hinted at, I generally believe this to be true. If there is a God, then Mormonism is probably from God, is probably constituted with greater truth and less error than other religions.
I generally believe that the evidence suggests that it is most likely that there is a God, but I am less well versed in this discussion than I am in the comparison of various problems and evidences within different theistic structures.

If I include in the “evidence” category those things I see when I open my own “mailbox” then I find the existence of God as virtually proven. These are things that exist only within me and my life. Few of them have any manifestation (at least toward the proof of God) outside of my internal experience. I tell people that for me to be an atheist, God would need to command me and this of course is logically impossible.

Anyway, I was interested in what you meant by the words I captured above and in what you think about the probability of Mormonism, Theism, and ….
Charity, TOm

Some of your arguments about free will suggest a new interpretation of the statement that God is all-knowing. Rather than meaning that God knows everything, it could mean that God knows everything that can be known. That everything can be known doesn’t necessarily follow.

Similarly, suppose the statement that God is all-powerful doesn’t necessarily imply that everything can be done. Perhaps God is bound by certain natural laws, among these, the inability to restrict evil without restricting good. Could God, therefore, be incapable of restricting evil? Or is this the conclusion you seek to avoid?

1. Examples where scientists use “well it could be” type responses in their published arguments.
2- Examples of how Mormonism responds better (I assume you mean than other religions) with regard to God’s existence.
3. How you resolve Matthew’s out of context use of scripture.

Thanks.

Jeff Ricks says,
I’m not a philosopher but it seems to me that there’s a problem with the above, starting with the proposition that God exists. We know evil exists. We don’t know God exists. It’s a faith-based hope at best. Also, until #3 is clearly answered, #1 cannot be established as anything more than (as you say in #3), “possibly true.” Your reasoning strikes me a similar to what I read in FARMS and other apologetic works.”

TOm:

As I mentioned in a previous post, it was long before my Mormonism that I failed to achieve a non-theistic view of the world. After I joined the CoJCoLDS, I was a member for many years without what most members call a “testimony.” I tend to agree with you when you say the response to the “logical problem of evil” offered by philosophy does not prove God exists, but it is not supposed to do that. The response to Joseph Smith’s polygamy is not supposed to prove that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God either.

Philosophers and “scientists” have developed various arguments that are designed to prove that there is a God. I think the best arguments are fair and the worst are very bad. Mormon apologists have developed various arguments that are designed to show that Mormonism is from God. I think the best arguments are fair and the worst are very bad.

So I suggest that the criticism, “Well it could be that such and such is the case…” is to be levied against the responses to those points critics bring up. In the common occurrence of philosophers and scientists addressing the “evidence for God” the non-theistic philosopher or scientist occasionally resort to “Well it could be that such and such is the case…” In the UNCOMMON occurrence of critics of the church responding to “evidence for Mormonism” they occasionally resort to “Well it could be that such and such is the case…”

I am quite convinced that of the theistic structures (and I have not looked too far beyond Christianity, but I have studied a few non-Christian structures) Mormonism is the best read of history, ancient and modern, and the Bible. With Blake’s exploration of philosophy, I see Mormonism responding much better within the realm of philosophy as well.

The type of thinking that leads one out of Mormonism if consistently applied will IMO lead one out of Christianity. I assume that Jeff Ricks would quite agree with me here.

I was a Christian long before I was a LDS. I have found within Mormonism sufficient responses to problems like Matthew’s out of context Old Testament discussions. It often seems to me that a fundamentalism mentality is what always dies when the evidence is critically weighed. This is true for the LDS, the Christian, and many other folks. When you expect to be able to tell apart the players by the color of their hats, you are going to be shaken when you discover that reality does not paint only in black and white.

Charity, TOm

Jeff: Here is where the difference between being a philosopher and being in information systems actually matters.

Blake, I don’t see how that comment needs to be part of your response. It feels to me like another put down, where you’re attempting to imply your superiority over me. Please don’t do that anymore unless it’s part of your argument. I think you can make your point just as well without the condescending remarks. I’m trying to be as polite and nice as I can in asking you this.

There is often a similar disconnect in reading FARMS arguments — and I believe the disconnect is appears in your post. It is important to distinguish between an argument that says that: (a) I can show Mormonism is true; (b) I can show that Mormonism is probable; (c) I can show that Mormonism is plausible; (d) I can show that Mormonism is possibly true. FARMS writers most often aim for (c), they sometimes argue either (d) or (b), but they have never, to my knowledge, argued for (a). They recognize that such proof is impossible. However, evangelical fundamentlists anti- and ex-mos almost always argue for: (d*) I can show that Mormonism is impossible. Frankly, that is just non-sense. To meet that kind of argument, FARMS or others only need to argue that (d). In fact, my DNA arguments are aimed at this kind of argument that DNA is an absolute disproof of the Book of Mormon. It isn’t. I probably could not argue for (b) and I know I can’t argue for (a) in the face of DNA evidence; but I believe there is a good case to be made for (c) and I am rather certain that I have established (d) — tho maybe I’m more convinced by my DNA arguments than others. Just an observation.

I wrote that last comment between meetings (in a hurry)….and actually meant it as a compliment…Please don’t take it as a dig.

Thanks!

As I see, there are two main kinds of evil:

1- Evil caused by man,
2- and ironically, evil we deam, “Acts of God.”

There’s not a heck of a lot we can do about acts of God whether actually caused by a god or by natural forces, so I say lets focus on the other: Acts of men.

As look around in the world at the evil acts of men another irony reveals itself. Much of, if not most of the evil acts of men are done in the name of a god. Go figure.

I don’t know what type of law you practice, but if you do criminal defense work, I’d certainly hire you if I got in a jam:-).

John….thanks for the medium, this discussion has been most insightful.

I’d be interested in continuing a discussion of evil if you have the time and interest. No hard feelings if you don’t.

so-this@hotmail.com

Blake said: “The pragmatic problem of evil is different thant he logical or inductive problems of evil. The logical problem says that the propositions: (1) God exists, is all good, all knowing, and all powerful; and (2) evil exists — are logically contradictory. This argument is easily defeated by observing that there is a third proposition that is consistent with both (1) and (2) that entails them both: (3) God may have good reasons for allowing evil. Since (3) is possibly true, (1) and (2) are not logically inconsistent.”

My background is product design and engineering. I’m not a philosopher but it seems to me that there’s a problem with the above, starting with the proposition that God exists. We know evil exists. We don’t know God exists. It’s a faith-based hope at best. Also, until #3 is clearly answered, #1 cannot be established as anything more than (as you say in #3), “possibly true.” Your reasoning strikes me a similar to what I read in FARMS and other apologetic works.

#1 Start with a belief.
#2 Evidence contradicts that belief.
#3 Respond with an unsubstantiated, “Well it could be that such and such is the case…”

John might say that we’re getting off track but I thought that should be pointed out.

Blake said: Thanks for the additional information. Which New Era?

I don’t remember the details; it was when I was 19, so bear with me. It was a news item that includes a photo of me standing next to an electric car I engineered. It was either in 1974 or 1975. If memory serves me the month was Novemeber and I think the magazine was the one that was targeted at young adults back then. I don’t remember if it was called the New Era or the Improvement Era but I don’t think it was the Era. I might still have a copy in a file cabinet at home if you’d like a more accurate reference.

Jake: Thanks for the encouragement. The pragmatic problem of evil is different thant he logical or inductive problems of evil. The logical problem says that the propositions: (1) God exists, is all good, all knowing, and all powerful; and (2) evil exists — are logically contradictory. This argument is easily defeated by observing that there is a third proposition that is consistent with both (1) and (2) that entails them both: (3) God may have good reasons for allowing evil. Since (3) is possibly true, (1) and (2) are not logically inconsistent.

The follow up is that the kinds and sheer quanity of evils for which we have no explanation show that God cannot exist. This argument is defeated by the observation that if God had good reasons we are not in an epistemic position to know what those reasons are. Since we don’t know how much we don’t know, the inductive argument is inconclusive.

The pragmatic problem of evil is the challenge that people face when they ask: how can I make sense of evils like cancer and rape and child abuse and genocide and so forth. The fact is that a religion ought to give some perspective to place our experiences into context and assist us to give meaning to our experiences. I agree with you that Mormonism is the strongest view I know to give such meaning to life’s experiences of evil. The fact that LDS theology entails that God himself is involved in the struggle against evil, that he hasn’t contrived it to torment us, gives us a possibility of responding to the evils we experience in unique ways. The pre-mortal existence opens up vast possibilities for putting our experience of evil into perspective. However, in the end I don’t know why God allows evils to occur that I would end and that, for the life of me, I cannot see how allowing them is justified. Nor could I argue that it is beyond God power, even as conceived in LDS thought, to prevent them. Thus, there always remains something unexplainable and nagging and crying out for meaning.

Sorry for the shorthad account of a very complex and deserving discussion.

Blake: I’m a latecomer to philosophy, not having paid much attention to it in school, and so I’m not sure what you mean by, “pragmatic argument from evil,” but Mormon doctrine, wherever it may have come from, seems strongest in its approach to the problem of evil.

Until now I haven’t felt the need to toot my own horn. I do it now only to make my point to you. I know they don’t get all the facts right.

I respect you both, and know that it is hard to discuss these things.

Thanks!

John

Blake, that feels just as out of bounds to me. You may not see it that way but that’s the way if feels to me. Let’s both try harder to avoid personal put downs, okay?

In fact I have been taking a risk here to let you get to know me a bit but It’s pretty clear you just don’t like what I say — could it be because I actually like being a member of the Church? I’m not talking you down — I suggested that I disagree with your view of what history is or could ever be. I disagree with the journalistic model precisely because it doesn’t tell a story or place things into perspective. Your view tells me that you place way too much trust in the journalistic ability to “get the facts right”.

I have taken the risk to focus on my experience for a few simple reasons: (1) it assists you to know where I am coming from just as Hellmut has been transparent and given some background as to why his experience is different and he has a sense of betrayal that I don’t have; (2) I know it well; and (3) where else could I come from? I suspect that you are right that taking a good look and engaging in self-reflection is good for the soul. However, your assertion that you have divined something about me that deserves self-reflection is a simple personal attack. As such, I suggest that you are out of bounds in this discussion.

I have to say Blake, that your participation on this site, this thread in particular, reveals that for some reason you continually look for opportunities to talk down to people while at the same time look for opportunities to talk Blake Olster up. It’s getting old and to me is very revealing of some things about you that I think deserve some self-reflection. I mean that as constructive criticism. Do with it what you want.

Jeff, you haven’t had much first-hand interaction with news stories have you? I have been in and had first hand knowledge of dozen of jouranalistic stories over the years. They never get the facts totally right — not in any story I was aware of ever. Sometimes the facts are so distorted by the axe the reporter has to grind that I don’t recognize any of the facts — though the reporter thought s/he was just reporting the facts. So let me reitierate — facts don’t fall out of the sky and are not self-interpreting or self-selecting. The historian must weave a narrative out of the data that can have multiple plausbile interpretations. I’m not trying to excuse anything here — it is just the way being a human being happens to really be.

That said, the issues related to what you call “the vagaries of the Joseph Smith story” are different for me because I am a trial attorney and I have the opportunity to hear people tell in good faith the same story over and over with time in between and I am fully aware of the vagaries of human memory, how one’s purposes shape and influence the narrative, how one’s interest focus on some things and foreget others and so forth. So I see such vagaries as to be expected — and easily explainable BTW.

Your claim that Utah has a higher suicide rate and so forth is uninformed. It is lower than other states in the West as a whole and higher than the East. But assuming that is due to the church commits the logical fallacy of division because not all Utahns are LDS and because the incidence of suicide and depression is much lower among active LDS — as is the divorce rate for temple marriages (tho the divorce rate for mixed marriages is higher as one might expect).

I cannot speak to the experience of the young people in your ward — and it sounds like you are yourself very young (at least comparatively). However, I doubt that the Church was the sole cause of the problems that they had — there are always so many variables.

“It is my fault that I assumed that LDS leaders would meet their fiduciary obligation towards me and my family since they demanded my obedience. That does not change the fact that we were let down and exploited at considerable expense to our mental health.”

I don’t know what you mean by that comment. How could they demand obedience? Are you suggesting that they forced you somehow? Are you suggesting that you were not free then as you are now to do differently? They may have expected conduct in conformance with the gospel principles — I fail to see how to leads to poor mental health. I admit that 10% is an expense but I would guess that you gave it freely without force. It can be a financial burden. I can see that. But blaming a divorce and marital abuse on Spencer Kimball is beyond the pale even for me. Everything bad that happened was caused by the Church? This type of insistence on blaming everything on the Church loses credibility for me. You are of course entitled to your take on things — but this kind of omniresponsibility for the Church is just too much even for me.

I find exactly the opposite in my life. The Church gives life to my life. I view my life as immeasureably better because of the Church. I would follow the teachings even if I didn’t believe Joseph Smith because I see it as a superior way to live life. I would even give 10% on principle to avoid becoming too attached to money and to keep the purpose of life in perspective. I guess that our experiences are just different in that respect.

I have been aware of these issues since High School. I didn’t have to do anything more than just the usual amount of looking to find everything you now complain about. It caused me to question but I believe I can provide perfectly rational explanations for these challenges — with the exception of the pragmatic argument from evil. Indeed, I believe that there is a good deal of countervailing consdierations and evidence showing that Joseph Smith had the remarkable experiences and gifts that he claimed. If you wold like to hear that side of the story let me know.

Without getting Bushman’s nuances exactly right, his approach makes sense if you want to be a historian. You only have access to a limited amount of data. Historians cannot interview witnesses. And even the best journalists get the story often wrong because they are subject to constraints. There is enough ambiguity to tell a variety of different stories.

However, Bushman’s analysis falls short because it does not appreciate the function and the purpose of the Joseph Smith story. If one doesn’t consider that then one cannot understand the Joseph Smith story.

We don’t know that Joseph Smith wanted to share the story as accurately as possible. May be, he did. May be, he didn’t.

What ought to be beyond dispute is that Joseph Smith told the story so that people would follow him.

Of course, it would be dangerous to engage into that kind of enquiry. Remaining within the parameter of history is going to be a lot less controversial.

Emphasizing the faith promoting side of the Church while minimizing the side that doesn’t show very well comes at a cost, and that cost is that its problems are not being adequately addressed and people continue being hurt.

In that respect, Bushman’s analysis falls short. To him, the story telling is a purpose in itself.

I too was perplexed by Bushman’s description of a historian’s job as storytelling. It seems to me that it should be more like journalism, where the goal of the journalist is to get the facts right, not to tell a story.

I suppose the need for a new podcast or lack thereof depends upon your goals. If you want people to understand the minds of international converts better, it might not be a bad idea. If your goal is limited to stressing this singly point about Joseph Smith as a historical figure, perhaps you are right.

Good to see you too. Cheers!

Good to see you here.

I am not sure that we need a new podcast to think things through to their logical conclusion. The Joseph Smith story is not simply a historical account. It is about changing people’s behavior.

Ignoring that aspect mischaracterizes the essence of the Joseph Smith story. Smith told that story to get people to follow him. That fact might not meet the needs of legacy Mormons like Bushman but the drive for converts is key to understanding the Mormon experience generally and the Joseph Smith story particularly.

Blake,

Do you understand what it means to be a Mormon outside of Deseret or uproad? Think about it for a minute. Where in Germany could I have found out about the vagaries of the Joseph Smith story? In fact, it would have been difficult to find out about that in Maryland until recently.

I know about the vagaries of the Joseph Smith story because I found the information on the Internet, which is not the merit of the LDS Church. I did not know about it after four years of seminary, teaching gospel essentials and gospel doctrine, serving as executive secretary to the bishop, ward mission leader, full time missionary and counselor in a branch presidency. If I did not find out after all that, it was not for lack of effort.

I wish I had known about the vagaries of the Joseph Smith story after I graduated from seminary and left for a mission. The later experience turned out to be a life and personality changing experience, not for the better, I might add. Unfortunately, that assessment was shared by four out of five of the boys who were raised in my age cohort in the ward. If we had known about the evolution of the Joseph Smith story, for example, there is no way that we would have allowed anyone to exercise so much control over our lifes.

The only way, one could know about these questions in the days before the Internet was via Sunstone and Dialogue, which were published against the advice of the Brethren, the Mormon History Association, which has also been subject to LDS pressure, and BYU Studies, which might not exist where it not to balance other publications. But that’s neither here nor there.

The important thing is that BYU Studies was not available in Germany or most other places in the world. BYU studies is not even carried in most university libraries. And teenagers attend seminary, not university libraries. It was not a resource that could have helped us to protect ourselves.

It is my fault that I assumed that LDS leaders would meet their fiduciary obligation towards me and my family since they demanded my obedience. That does not change the fact that we were let down and exploited at considerable expense to our mental health.

These discussions can be quite frustrating because legacy Mormons seldom appreciate what it means for people to convert and what happens to them.

If one acts on the belief that Joseph Smith represents God then there are consequences. In some cases, these consequences are great. In other cases, the consequences are horrible. Except for the converts that quickly melt away, there appears to be little in between.

I know one convert who joined in his twenties as a non-commissioned officer. At a conference, he was introduced to a general authority who wondered why he was not in college. In Germany that was an odd remark but it expanded the horizon of the young convert so far that he went back to night school, qualified for university and became a physician (in the meanwhile, he left Mormonism because he objects to guilting people over masturbation. There can be no doubt, however, that Mormonism improved his education and his career considerably).

I know a couple of second generation Mormons, like Dieter Uchtdorf, who were clearly guided by their faith to transcend class as well as their material situations to improve their lifes by quantum leaps. In light of how class based German society used to be, one has to credit the conversion of their parents for their success. Unfortunately, these stories have become increasingly rare and there are too many sad accounts.

The last eighteen months, I have tracked down the young men and women that grew up with me.

To find out how they fared was distressing. Four out of five return missionaries returned with depression. They left excited and energetic and returned beaten down (interestingly, none of the indigenous leaders but one have served missions).

Though I have to admit that two of my friends already felt overwhelmed by guilt induced by reading Miracles of Forgiveness. For most of us, it took over fifteen years to work through those experiences, in part because it was impossible to share our authentic feelings with anyone.

One girl developed a sleeping disorder, which lasted almost seven years. Eventually, her parents had to commit her. She remained in hospitals and psychiatric institutions a little less than two years. Therapy uncovered that her sleeplessness was motivated by a primary teacher’s warning that Satan would sneak into her heart. She is doing a lot better now but remains on medication. (You might remember Serenity Valley’s experience with sleeplessness, which was similar though less dramatic).

Another young woman in a neighboring ward died of cancer because she relied on the stake president’s home remedies and priesthood powers at the expense of oncological treatment. Her family and her friends are still sorting through the consequences of her death because she had too much faith to settle her affairs.

Then there is the couple that never should have gotten married but did because they were the only available temple worthy spouses. Making a difficult situation impossible, they followed Spencer Kimball’s admonition and had more children than they could afford. A choice that would have violent consequences. Their children are now growing up in poverty without support from their ward or their father.

One might argue that my experience is an exception but there are reasons to conclude that it might be representative of the Mormon experience. Mind you, two years ago I was not aware of any of this. People tend not to talk about these kind of things, especially not in a society that relies as much on social control as Mormonism. Moreover, the data we have about Utah suggests that there are many Mormons that have similar experiences. I refer you to the anti-depressant consumption and suicide statistics, for example.

Clearly, the Joseph Smith story’s assumes meaning ultimately in light of these stories for they are the consequence of people’s faith in the prophet. If you don’t believe that Smith proclaims the will of God then you will rely less on the judgment of LDS leaders. People would have watched out for themselves better and would have responded to demands by LDS leaders more skeptically. Arguably, most of us would have been spared grief.

In that respect, Bushman’s analysis falls short. To him, the story telling is a purpose in itself. To many Mormons, however, the Joseph Smith story is the foundation for the most important decisions of their life. In that regard, I suspect that Joseph Smith, as well as contemporary LDS leaders, are more likely to agree with me than Bushman.

Blake, the bottom line is that 90% of the members of the Church believe a version of history that is far from accurate at a fundamental level. Period! Why???

Because the Church is the institution that members look to for accurate “true” information, at the very least the Church is guilty of negligence or incompetence relative to their responsibility to the members. I think it goes beyond that. Maybe the word for it is willful negligence.

It seems to me that two issues are being repeatedly conflated that should really be treated separately. The first is access to sensitive documents concerning Mormon history that are kept in the archives or the First Presidency’s vault. The second is the effectiveness of the Church at educating its members, surely a responsibility the organization bears, such that they can deal with the issues confronted in other sources like the internet.

Concerning the first issue, it is not reasonable to suppose that the sensitive documents possessed by the Church will be placed in a lending library. Nevertheless, the degree to which it appears these documents are controlled has obviously become a PR issue for a number of better-informed members. The appearance of hiding something is just about as bad as truly hiding something for the health of the organization.

Rather than rely on the vigorous protestations of interested individuals like Mr. Ostler, I am sure the Church could do something proactive to change its image for the better in connection with the handling of these materials. That something needs to be sufficiently well publicized–something the Church is obviously capable of doing when properly motivated–so that more than a few eggheads know about it.

As for the second issue, regardless of motivations, good or bad, the Church has built a reputation amongst a significant and growing minority of members for discouraging thoughtful discourse on Mormon topics outside of approved circles and sources. While the foundations of this reputation do not constitute evidence of a sustained and deliberate policy, they have created the sense that safety is found in avoiding study groups, symposia, independent publications, the writings of certain scholars, and participating in a variety of fora on the internet.

At the same time, the educational materials the Church offers are insufficient to meet the needs of the members who find greater mental stimulation in all of the fora and writings the Church warns against. I don’t believe that the Church maliciously pursues a policy of enforcing endless kindergarten education in Mormonism on its members, but the results of their choices are pretty plain.

People go elsewhere for more information and discussion. These other places bear the stigma, however slight, of being frowned upon by Church authorities. The smart member is immediately prompted to ask him or herself whether he or she is a good member for getting involved. Once one has imagined one’s self on the outside, it is easy to continue to develop that outsider identity until one simply no longer feels akin with other Mormons in the chapel.

Imagine what the Church could do if it provided its own alternatives that would suit these members’ needs? I turn to a historical example. During the Second Punic War, the city of Rome was inundated with a variety of street prophets who sought refuge from the Carthaginian commander Hannibal. Many of these prophets were probably predicting the gods’ support of Hannibal. The Senate did several things in response–one of them pretty stupid.

The stupid response was to confiscate all prophetic books and burn the ones they did not like. The effective response was the manufacture of a prophecy that enjoined the Senate to create a new festival of Apollo. The effect of the latter response was to coopt the religious enthusiasm rampant in the city and redirect it.

It is this cooptation and redirection that the LDS Church is most clearly failing to do. Answers to these problems exist, but I wonder if the Church is capable of responding in productive ways. If the best it can do is very tentatively not discipline Richard Bushman and not denounce his biography, then I would say the response is currently sadly inadequate.

I heard Bushman, and I have heard many others, say that it is not the Church’s job to do “x” with regard to history, documents, information, and curriculum. That may be true, but denying responsibility, whether it is done by the Church or on its behalf, is not helping. It is going to require a lot of fence mending, bridge building, and curriculum improvement to reverse the trends of member exodus and decreased converts.

I believe that the Book of Mormon is an expansion of ancient text. That is, the process of revelation inherently includes the limitation of Joseph Smith’s conceptuality, linguistic practices, and ability to express a text. So we get an ancient text filtered through Joseph Smith’s language and world-view. I give several reasons why I believe that the evidence srongly supports an ancient Urtext based on form-critical analysis.

Those who do not want to believe, will not.

It really is that simple.

But I’m way past the discussions of true/false, or hero/villain. Not only are they impossible to determine, but they’ve become boring.”

– John, I couldn’t stop thinking about this comment you made earlier in the thread. I think it is just way to simplistic to say those who want to believe will. So my problem is just that I don’t want to believe and nothing to do with the reality that was Joseph Smith. So much of this thread seems to be trying to make people not trust that their are real facts about Joseph Smith that can be known to make an informed decision. Sounds like historians trying to make people distrust history.
And when you say you are bored with the true/false, hero/villain discussion, I don’t get it I’m afraid. I think this life is so much about searching for truth. And I believe there are heroes and villains and it is pretty vital to be careful which you pledge your allegiance to. I completely agree that all men have flaws , but when I try to determine who I will follow, there is a mental scale we have to use and try to decide if that man’s good far outweighs the bad. When I started to find out so many things that I just never knew, and how it seemed to fit a pattern of behavior that I had never seen before, the scales began to tip for Joseph Smith in way they hadn’t before. I believe there are very heroic and still flawed men that I can believe in. Most of the time in man’s history, the villains have come to power through the support of an ill informed populous, and that is why a unshackeled free press is so important and vital. I believe the same holds true in religion.

No endeavor can speak to the needs of everyone. I would love to see you address the deficiency you see in Mormon Stories by starting your own podcast directed at the issues you raised regarding converts, particularly non-American converts, and their experience with Mormonism. I would think that there is room for such a podcast, and I for one would be interested.

Regards.

So once again — what documents or information do you claim the Church has suppressed as opposed to merely disagreeing with the conclusions of ex-Mos and detractors? Are you suggesting that the Church has a duty to teach the views of its critics and detractors? I just don’t believe that is reasonable.

Come on, Blake, that’s Ivory Tower and not relevant to most Mormons. Even if we are super active, we do not have access to those resources.

The question is whether or not people should obey Joseph Smith and his successors. That is the context where the Joseph Smith story affects people’s life most.

The LDS Church sends out tens of thousands of missionaries to challenge millions of people to change their religion, redefine their identities and family relationships, and contribute their time and their money according to the instructions of LDS leaders. These demands rest on the Joseph Smith story.

If it were just about story telling and history then Bushman’s position would be sufficient. If it were about recovering the positive aspects of LDS heritage for legacy Mormons, Bushman’s approach would be perfect.

Unfortunately for Bushman’s approach to history, the LDS narrative of Joseph Smith is about converting people. I have seen some converts that transformed their lifes spectatcularly in a Mormon context. Sadly, I have seen many more that have suffered tremendously. They became vulnerable because they approached religion literally in the sense of the Joseph Smith story.

I am afraid that the value of the Bushman approach is limited to legacy Mormons who need to recover and preserve their heritage. It is sad that it is too myopic to address the challenges that arise from the Joseph Smith story for converts.

I must also say that this limitation seems to affect the Mormon Stories project. Especially in light of the last interviews, Mormon Stories feels like the attempts of legacy Mormons to recover the positive aspects of their heritage. It is ironic that so little regard is given to the needs of people who sacrificed their heritage to become Mormons.

Of course, I am asking too much of a historian but Bushman himself acknowledges that in Mormonism history is doctrine. In that sense, competing accounts are not equal. The official account is a demand. That has positive and negative consequences that one would have to explore to determine the value of the Joseph Smith story.

Blake–let me know if you are interested.

http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/trackingconfessions2.htm

John,
I suspect Blake will be back to answer your questions, but he has published his “expansion theory” on the BOM. It has ancient roots, but 19th century expansion too. I see some of his view in Brant Gardner’s view on the BOM which I largely embrace. Also his Compassion Theory of the Atonement is quite different than most Mormon and non-Mormon views of the atonement, but I am a fan. Here is a link to a discussion on the atonement.
http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2006/04/ostlers-atonement-theory/232/

Charity, TOm

‘Reading minds’ is perhaps not the fairest way to characterize Brodie’s work on the whole. I think it preferrable to say that she had a fine intuitive sense for the motivations of her subject, an educated guess based on pretty thorough research for the day. I would weigh her intuition equally with Bushman’s supposition that Joseph Smiths’ experiences were basically as they were represented in canonical LDS sources. Both represent some basic assumptions that cannot ultimately be proven.

Furthermore, at the end of the day, biography and history are different genres, as they have been since their invention in antiquity. Biography has been, and I think rightly, more of an attempt to capture the spirit of the individual than history. In this regard Brodie remains far superior to others who have attempted to write Smith’s biography. Naturally, this is my opinion, but I think your characterization of her as engaging in mind reading is a little dramatic and prejudicial.

“By virtue of the fact that the Church has a history of excommunicating, disfellowshipping, threatening, firing, shunning and otherwise pressuring people who publish certain information that those individuals feel is true and accurate, coupled with what has been established above, clearly establishes that the Church does intentionally and willfully control, suppress, and alter information that the majority of members have reasonable access to and is therefore acting in ways that reasonable people not biased by ties with the Church would conclude are unethical, immoral and dishonest.”

First, as a serious Christian, if I publish my opinion that Mormonism is a fraud then I will be long gone before I am “excommunicated, disfellowshipped, or ….” The “threatening, shunning and pressuring” are quite irrelevant as well. And I would hope the firing would be something that I would also not require because being employed by an organization that is a fraud is not something to which I aspire.

All that being said, I do not think the Church excommunicates people for the information they share. The Church excommunicates people for the conclusions they draw and then publicize. It should be obvious from the different participants on this thread that the historical data does not demand a singular conclusion. The person who concludes from the data that the Church is a fraud should not be a member of the Church.

Now, I believe the spirit of Joseph Smith’s restoration is occasionally corralled when the Church has drawn Orthodoxic lines. At the same time some unity of belief seems necessary. I find it hard to believe the Church could be one (even through orthopraxy) when some folks think Joseph Smith was an evil deceiver who manufactured plates and others view him as second only to Christ in virtue and importance. I however can find orthopraxic unity among folks who believe in an inspired but purely 19th century BOM and folks who believe in a word for word God dictated/translated ancient BOM.

The Church it seems has excommunicated or disfellowshiped folks (on pretty rare occasions) who not only held a view outside of what the church found orthodox, but published and argued for this view against the requests of church leaders. When that evangelized view is associated with demonstrating the church is false (Southernton – who was excommunicated for other reasons too) then I think excommunication is appropriate. When that evangelized view is associated with doctrinal things (Whitesides) I would be opposed to disfellowship and excommunication generally.

I think there is something to ponder in this statement and I like it:
Perhaps the Church could take a stance that is much less like that of the besieged minority whose leader was gunned down by a mob in the 19th century.

Charity, TOm

I also didn’t know that Mauss had said publicly he didn’t believe in BOM historicity. Did he publish that anywhere (again, just curious).

Where do you come down on BOM historicity and the traditional view of LDS atonement? Just curious.

It is my understanding that Mauss doesn’t accept the historicity of the Book of Mormon either and is fairly open about it. However, I will leave that to him to say. It isn’t my place to speak for either of them.

What do you mean when you call Bennion and Mauss non-believers? I think they (Bennion if he were alive) would take offense to that characterization.

No? Help me understand that accusation.

“The Church allows only people who are highly invested in the Church to parse, edit and interpret certain documents for members. So I think it’s also been established that those entrusted with the role of parsing and interpreting certain data for the members have a serious conflict of interest.”

Clearly not true. Asks Jan Shipps, Lawrence Foster and Robert Remini for just a few. These are responsible historians who have had wide access without interference and only being asked to follow usual archive protocols. Are you suggesting that somehow the Church controlled their conclusions or made them sign an agreement that they would only arrive at certain conclusions before they were granted access? That is preposterous in my view.

“It’s also been established that the Church has never opened all of its records to non-Mormon scholars for an independent review of the conclusions drawn by those who have a conflict of interest.”

See above. What do you mean — that these scholars were somehow controlled by the Church? That just isn’t so. What records do you claim have been withheld? BTW I checked into the claimed existence of the alleged Cowdery history. I can see no credible reason to believe it ever existed — and my sources all indicate they don’t believe such a document exists. Now look at the bind of this allegation — well yeah, that proves it! See, I say that the church is hiding it and no one can find it! Nonsense, where is the credible evidence that documents have been withheld with the exception of the descriptions of sacred ordinances — at least sacred to me and those in the Church?

“By virtue of the fact that the Church has a history of excommunicating, disfellowshipping, threatening, firing, shunning and otherwise pressuring people who publish certain information that those individuals feel is true and accurate, coupled with what has been established above, clearly establishes that the Church does intentionally and willfully control, suppress, and alter information that the majority of members have reasonable access to and is therefore acting in ways that reasonable people not biased by ties with the Church would conclude are unethical, immoral and dishonest.”

If a scholar comes out and says that Joseph Smith was a fraud, the church is a sham and I intend to prove, then yeah, they ought to be some method for the Church to say — this man doesn’t speak as one of us (tho I personally don’t like excommunication for such things). I could give a long list of individuals who openly were not believers who were not excommunicated — my good friends Sterling McMurrin, Lowell Bennion, and some I don’t know as well like Armond Mauss for instance. I disagree with you and I suppose in your eyes I am disqualified from being a reasonable person. However, I see such an action as clearly within the purview of reason — though I would advocate just ignoring them.

“How many times have you published on the subject of Mormon history in peer reviewed journals that are free and independent of the Church and not part of Mormon culture? If there are any instances please list the titles and may I please be directed to those papers?”

Well I have published about a dozen articles about the historical development of LDS views in Dialogue — that ought to count. Of course, if you demand publications in journals that just don’t care about Mormons no one has done that have they? Your demand is unreasonable. I publish philosophical articles about Mormonism in philosophical journals like Religious Studies out of Cambridge and International Journal for Philosophy of Religion out of the Netherlands. That clearly satisfies your request — but I am at a loss as to how that makes any difference.

“If you have pushed the envelope on some issues I applaud you for it—more of that his needed—but I don’t think you have or can go far enough because of the conflict of interest.”

The conflict of interest is one you assert but I suggest that the supposed conflict is contrived. What conflict of interest? You mention “crossing the line,” and there is a line. It is the line of civility and not atacking and accusing in public. Those who address the issues in a responsible and respectful manner and leave an option for learning and accommodating from each other have nothing to worry about in my experience. Those who accuse and attack and seek to expose the “real truth” because they assert that the leaders of the church are dishonest cross the line.

Trevor: Fawn Brodie was a good writer and she could turn a phrase and create a story and read minds. However, for readability I like Donna Hill’s biography best. I like Bushman’s as the best researched and best reasoned.

Adcama: I agree with what you say in your last post.

I believe I’m correct that in the Grant Palmer podcast he estimates that around 100,000 people per year are resigning from the Church. In the podcast with the FAIR apologist, the apologist stated that the problem of members becoming disaffected and leaving is growing.

I look forward to the day that the Church steps up to the plate and makes its next move. I wonder how much longer it will take before they do? Regardless of what and when they do, I’m content and at peace with my new life and have no intentions of returning to the Church. Life is good!

To me the issue is not whether the Church has willfully tried to hide information from the members, which it very well may, but the much more pragmatic matter of what needs to be done to see to the religious educational needs of the membership such that more people can be spared the shock of finding that there is a significantly unknown world under the veneer of approved Church information.

Granting for the sake of diplomacy that the Church has never tried to hide information from the members, many members are at some point faced with the reality of a Mormon past they never had much of an inkling of. And, frankly, I don’t think it is very realistic of scholars to act like the average intelligent member should react to that as an apologist would.

We can fight back and forth over the intentionality issues all day long. “Is the Church hiding things?” “Did ex-Mormons abdicate their personal responsibility to learn both sides of the issue before leaving?” Blame is easy to pass, and everyone seems content to keep on passing it around. This does not change the fact that there are folks out there who were reasonably happy Mormons, who were attending, participating, paying tithing, etc., who withdrew from fellowship as a result of some shocking discoveries, etc.

So far on the faithful Mormon side I have seen a lot of *independent* efforts to write apologetics, to author responsible history and biography, and to strategize on how to use technology to fight the proliferation of anti-Mormon information on the net. I have not seen the primary responsible party, the LDS Church, make any significant effort to respond to the needs of members for whom the increasingly vapid and incomplete educational materials no longer suffice.

Although it is a crass comparison, it may be helpful to liken the LDS Church to a business that, naturally, relies on its customer base to no small degree for its continued existence. There is a certain sector of the Church’s customer base whose needs are not being well met by the product. Instead of addressing that problem, the company tells the customer that it will only provide the same old product *just because.*

Meanwhile, the competition is exposing possible flaws in the product, providing its own versions of the specs and product history that the company refuses to provide to curious investors and potential buyers. The competition, in the face of the non-responsiveness of the company, is able to make a decent argument that the company is not forthright in its behavior. Customers and investors grow tired of waiting for the company to respond to their desire and eventually turn elsewhere to meet their needs.

For the life of the company, the question of whether it acted ethically or not is much less germane than the issue of addressing the desires of the customers. When one considers what the average member is asked to give to the Church, it is only reasonable to suppose that they will expect something substantial in return. Religion may not be exactly the same as the corporate world, but the distinction between the two grows ever less easy to make, the LDS Church being no exception.

It may be the case that the Church is meeting the needs of many of its members, but I would contend that that number is somewhere less than 50%, which, given the seriousness of the stakes (exaltation in the kingdom of God), should not be acceptable to those leaders who really believe in what they are doing.

And, as wonderful as Dr. Bushman’s much needed efforts are, any individual’s independent scholarship is not going to address the problems the Church faces as a whole. There is a significant minority of creative, intelligent, and passionate people whose needs are not met by the Church, and that really need not be the case to the extent that it is now. I don’t necessarily have the answers, but I would guess that an effort to show much greater openness, to provide more serious religious education, and to strike a less threatening pose toward those who attend symposia and write for “other voices” might help.

I can’t help but think that if what Mr. Ostler says about the historical documents of the Church is true, it would lose nothing and gain much by opening up all of its document resources to a small cadre of scholars and specialists in early American documents for cataloguing at the very least. Maybe more should be done by the Church to bring the interesting conversations like those Mr. Ostler has had with the privileged few to the educated membership. Perhaps the Church could take a stance that is much less like that of the besieged minority whose leader was gunned down by a mob in the 19th century.

Where scholars & historians have hard facts (information) about the seer stone, the “translation” process of the BOM, the B of Abraham material, etc., etc., etc – it needs to be presented to members so they have the ability to assess it. Otherwise, members (like me) are basing their faith, life, family, understanding of God, etc. on a fairy tale version that is fundamentally inaccurate.

This disconnect has caused me (and countless others) harm (don’t mean to sound like a whiner here). I’ve faced huge spiritual issues since I’ve discovered that in the course of my dedicated life to the church – to learning, teaching, paying, praying and serving, etc., someone decided that I should only have a version that increased faith, didn’t stir the pot, and increased the church’s presence. I didn’t even stop to think there may have been more to the story! In my humble opinion, that MUST change.

Now, I may have a naive and simplistic view. Perhaps I don’t understand all of the complications associatied with aligning the paradigms of rank & file church membership with a more accurate view of the historical record – but as I said, principle should trump challenges associated with doing the right thing.

I think I agree with you Blake – that this stuff is going to challenge the faith of some members. Some don’t even want to know the whole story…some don’t know that there’s more of a story out there (like me for a long time). The arguably noble goal of trying not to disrupt faith, not causing some to question and making growth more difficult should not trump the truth (in the form of well intentioned dissimulation).

Now, I hate to identify a problem and not a solution. Sadly, I don’t really have one….(maybe that’s how the brethren feel). It’s hard to just have an institute class, when some members will then argue that they should have been told during the first discussion. But, I think the tough issues – if we’re going to focus on church history as much as we do – need to play a bigger part of the programme – simply because that’s the right thing to do.

Thanks so much for these incredible interviews with Dr. Bushman. I have a great deal of respect for him, for his achievement, and for his aims in writing this great contribution to Mormon and American history.

I do have, however, one major criticism that applies not only to Bushman’s work, but also to Vogel’s and Quinn’s. Mormon historians, at some point, need to stop writing as though they are in the midst of an apologetic and polemical fray. In the work of all the aforementioned scholars I see a great density of facts and footnotes at the expense of well-written biography.

These scholars understandably write as though every jot and tittle is going to be scrutinized to death by Church leaders, Mormon apologists, and anti-Mormons. Surely they are right in supposing so, but the end result is work that is incredibly informative, equally dense, and losing hold of the man being depicted, all at the same time.

After all of the time I have spent reading about Joseph Smith in histories, biographies, and primary source material, I regret to say that the best biography of Joseph Smith, qua biography, was written over 50 years ago by Fawn Brodie. Whether one agrees with her conclusions or not, she manages to convey a human personality that is not lost in a pile of details, individual episodes, or acts of scriptural eisegesis (the latter criticisms do not apply to Bushman’s work in particular).

I do not regret Fawn Brodie’s work. I regret that 50 years have passed without the production of a portrait of Smith that is any more compelling in its coherence and liveliness. Mr. Bushman may be the better historian, but Ms. Brodie was by far the better writer and biographer.

1. No one has challenged my assertion that there are many instances where the Church has dummied the books that it makes readily available to members. Changing “wives” to “wife” is just one example. So I think it’s been established that the Church does “dummy the books,” so to speak.

2. The Church allows only people who are highly invested in the Church to parse, edit and interpret certain documents for members. So I think it’s also been established that those entrusted with the role of parsing and interpreting certain data for the members have a serious conflict of interest.

3. It’s also been established that the Church has never opened all of its records to non-Mormon scholars for an independent review of the conclusions drawn by those who have a conflict of interest.

4. By virtue of the fact that the Church has a history of excommunicating, disfellowshipping, threatening, firing, shunning and otherwise pressuring people who publish certain information that those individuals feel is true and accurate, coupled with what has been established above, clearly establishes that the Church does intentionally and willfully control, suppress, and alter information that the majority of members have reasonable access to and is therefore acting in ways that reasonable people not biased by ties with the Church would conclude are unethical, immoral and dishonest.

I don’t feel that your examples of material that you have published have sufficiently addressed the issue of conflict of interest. They only show that you have a good feel for knowing how close to come to the line without crossing it. Clearly there is a line and clearly some have crossed it. Grant Palmer is a recent example of one who crossed that line. Darron Smith is another. Clearly a conflict of interest exists.

How many times have you published on the subject of Mormon history in peer reviewed journals that are free and independent of the Church and not part of Mormon culture? If there are any instances please list the titles and may I please be directed to those papers? If you have pushed the envelope on some issues I applaud you for it—more of that his needed—but I don’t think you have or can go far enough because of the conflict of interest.

You raised some red herrings that have little to do with the subject of this thread, such as the nature of a website I’m involved with. I’m happy to address those issues later if you will make a good faith effort to address each of the four determinations above.

With respect to the Sept. 6 — I know them all personally except Gileadi. There was more involved in the decision than their stance on issues about the Church. I will not get into it on a blog, but I’m happy to discuss it if you find me at a seminar or symposium. I would rather focus on what I know from my own experience. As you know I published an article that argued that Joseph Smith expanded the Book of Mormon text. I published articles and books arguing that foreknowledge and free will are incompatible. In doing so I was explicitly disagreeing with some Church authorities. I had the opportunity to discuss these issues at length with BYU religious faculty and Church leaders. I believe that one’s willingness to dialogue in good faith without simply rejecting or opposing is an important key.

I have also taught philosophy classes in which we assess the strongest arguments against the existence of God, the trustworthiness of spiritual experiences, the problem of evil and so forth. I don’t pull any punches. I present the arguments in the strongest form that I believe they can be presented. Sometimes I offer that I don’t have a knock down explanation. Students wonder and think. I have taught children and grand-children of GAs who discussed the issues with them (at my urging). I have discussed openly with BYU seminars various ways of viewing the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham and the strength (in my view) of the evidence for these options.

It has not once been suggested that I should cut-back or protect faith or fudge the facts or avoid the issues. In the appropriate context of a responsible discussion with those seeking such information everything can be discussed openly. Too many conflate the fact that we don’t have such discussions in sunday school with the assumptions that such discussion are just verbotten or never allowed. In my experience, that just isn’t true.

R.K. — I don’t mean to come off as arrogant. I’m just doing my best to suggest that history is not responsibly assessed by jumping to unwarranted conclusions as it appeared to me that you are doing. I wish you the best. I didn’t assume that there were family issues — you volunteered this: “I’m still in it but have not yet made a decision to stay or not . My children are raising families and one is struggling like me and the others feel pretty strongly about staying.” I wish you both the best in that struggle. I simply wanted to urge you not to be judgmental about Joseph and earlier “saints”. Let me add — it is important to know the facts before making decisions. However, I believe that there are no “bare facts”; there are only assessments of facts as we see them from our vantage point. History is an ongoing exploration. I wouldn’t presume to try to the thinking for you — as I believe you now suggest. I just challenge you to do this thinking with a heart of charity and not a heart of judgmentalness. In fact, the greatest irony I find in reading web-sites like the one Jeff points to is that all of the participants complaint about how judgmental LDS are and then they often go into a long tirade of judgment about Joseph Smith and church leaders and members. I simply urge you to avoid that.

Blake said–”It is a simple fact that at our vantage point we actually have a better feel for what happened in Kirtland — along with the rest of the nation. If they thought there was fraud or accused someone of it, they were making false and inaccurate judgments — just as you are now doing.”
I’m just surprised that you feel you have so much more knowledge of the circumstances than the actual participants that you can say they were making false statements. And with almost no real knowledge of what I know you accuse me of the same thing. You seem awfully quick to assume that you have more knowledge than others. I admit you probably know more than I do. I just find it interesting to see how little information you need to make your accusations.

Blake said– “I’m sorry if you now choose to exist and undergo the pain of breaking up a family.”
Again, with almost no information you make an assumption which is totally false. My family is great. The mind of an apologist and historian works in interesting ways.

Blake said– “I’m glad that I don’t fact that decision because I am quite comfortable being committed to the Church — knowing quite as much about its history I dare say as you do. If people become dis-illusioned about a naive faith, then good.”
I know I probably come across as fairly ignorant and naive but I just find it continually interesting how much you assume without knowing much of anything about me, and here we are in this discussion about whether it is important to know the facts before we make conclusions.

Blake said later on– “Most of the Enron shareholders wouldn’t understand the information anyway. Trust me — I’ve done securities fraud cases. The vast majority of shareholders need lawyers just to tell them what the documents and to tell them what documents are out there — so the important thing is that the lawyers can have access to it.”
That just sounds so arrogant. After 54 years of studying politics and life in general I learned that to let supposedly more learned lawyers and such tell you that they know better and to trust them to tell you what you need to know doesn’t cut it in life and often leads to people being taken advantage of. An attitude of “Just be comfortable in your ignorance and we’ll let you know what you need to know and when you need to know it.” I think you usually find out when you look behind that attitude that you weren’t told everything you should have known and we all learned enough as children to know we don’t like being burned a second time.
The way you come across is exactly why I find it so hard to read the FAIR discussion boards for any extended time. I go there really searching for answers and so often the threads lead to unwarranted assumptions and personal accusations. I admit my statements about Joseph Smith were a bit strong and I’m sorry if it offended anyone.
I completely agree with Jeff and Adcama and others. I think the whole discussion illustrates my point that there is a big divide in the church in what constitutes honesty, and that divide is what sends up red flags to an increasing number of members.
I also think the discussion proves the point that not only are church leaders such as Joseph human but so are historians and apoligists and so that is why it is so important for people to be able to get the bare relevant facts as much as possible and trust them to make a wise decision. But I feel like that is thought of as an outrageously naive idea and a threat to the institution. I just have a naive faith in humankind I guess. But after knowing so many people over the years that think they know best, I’ve decided the greatest gift God gave me was a mind and a right to personal revelation for my own life and the parable of the ten talents applies there as much as anywhere.

Okay, I’ll go with that, Blake. But I’m not going to trust those lawyers if those lawyers are employed by Enron, and risk punishment by Enron including termination by Enron if those lawyers don’t paint a “faith promoting” interpretation of the data that’s given to the shareholders.

And such is the case with Mormonism. The Church has a history of terminating employment of scholars under who don’t paint a “faith promoting” interpretation of the facts for the members. Such has been the case with a number of scholars who called it as they saw it. The risk they face is real, so the conflict of interest is real. You’re not employed by the Church but your life is invested in the Church and its culture. The conflict of interest isn’t as significant but it’s still there, so I wouldn’t trust you to be unbiased as you interpret for me the facts.

Now, if the Church would allow non-Mormon historians (comparable to auditors) to have full access to the information and interpret it for the members, then your arguments work. I’m not aware that the Church has ever done that.

Why not compare the making available of historical information to education where making information available is age and subject matter appropriate? You assume bad intentions. I don’t believe there are any — certainly not among the leaders I have spoken with. I believe that leaders are sensitive to the need to make the information available but they often don’t know what to make of it themselves or the vest venues and ways to make it accessable.

There is one glaring fact about this information however. You found it all. You’re not a scholar. So what is it you claim — that you couldn’t get it? The fact that you know all about it shows that your claims aren’t true as I see it. The fact that you had to put some effort into it is hardly an indictment.

I agree with wkemptom that it is important for the Church to be up front and innoculate members by having the information come from a friendly source. I got mine from the BYU book store and Deseret Book for the most part. That is why my experience just doesn’t jive with what you are saying to indict the Church.

I also disagree that Bushman was metering or withholding anything. I’m certain he doesn’t see it that way. It’s just that what ex-Mos want to see discussed in depth isn’t what interested him or what he thought was relevant or important enough to focus on. His focus was different. That is the purpose of a historian — to hold up a lens on the sources so that we can see them through that lense. Everyone has a lens. It isn’t as if Bushman had a lense to focus on some things and you don’t. Your post here shows a focus on finding a way to indict the Church. That isn’t his focus — it was Brodie’s however. I just don’t think that is a good focus for historians and I liked Bushman’s focus. As I said earlier, I wanted a lot more discussion of some issues, but one can only do so much in a single volume.

The accounting rules/Enron example is probably getting old, but….I know there are tons of facts, numbers and notes that company executives would like to withhold because such disclosures are negative….and negative publicity will not help the company’s stock price, image and growth. However, accounting rules and ethical standards require disclosure because experience has shown that people can be misled and hurt when the object is something other than complete honesty. Besides….isn’t being honest (and I use that term to describe the withholding certain, unpleasant information) simply the right thing to do? Shouldn’t that trump the desire for growth? Shouldn’t principle win out? Let the consequences follow?

Bishop Edgley’s talk last October was great. I guess, to me, concealing certain unflattering facts is not “Three towels & a $.25 newspaper” honest. But, maybe I’m wrong.

I was very interested in Blake’s experience. Sounds like you got a huge head start with some of the “meatier” things. I don’t want to be presumptuous, but this type of experience seems like the exception. I always felt like it was frowned upon to read/look at anything that wasn’t on some list in the sky filled with “approved” material (the current year priesthood manual and Jesus the Christ). And that material….led me to a huge chasm in what I knew, and what was.

I don’t think I’m alone – in fact, I hear this same point of view frequently (and as I recall, John did one of his first outstanding podcasts on this very issue). Two of my good friends summarily exited the church when concealed information was discovered. Sure, some of the reason for their leaving had to have been the content of the discoveries – but it was an easy decision for them to check out when they felt like they’d been lied to by everyone from primary teachers to GBH. Seems like there are alot of people who take the same road…..

I realize that it’s hard enough for church leaders to keep basic order in such a large organization…I can see how it would seem like an impossible task to introduce such complexity, imperfection and (let’s face it) weirdness in a way that doesn’t immediately spin out of control. But the alternative is people like me – many of whom just pack it in – questioning the church’s forthrighness and institutional integrity.

Maybe the answer is more Professor Bushmans….perhaps it’s an advanced institute class – maybe the church’s CIO could fix everything with a new lds.org web based tutorial.

Blake, your repeated claims that the Church doesn’t hide information might, I repeat might, technically be true but impeding the availability of information to the average member (which is probably 95% of the members) such that they have to dig for it, or be scholars like you to even have access to it, for all intents and purposes is withholding information from them. The net effect is the same.

Continuing the Enron comparison, it is like Enron making information available but in a way that insures that most of the shareholders aren’t going to bother digging it up. And the net effect for those shareholders is the same as if Enron had that information locked away in a vault. This because those shareholders, like most people don’t have the time to dig for the facts. Instead they’ll trust that the dummied books and financial reports that they do have ready access to are a reasonably faithful representation of the truth. That’s the trust that the members have in the Church. 90% of them trust that the Church is giving it to them straight so they therefore have no need to go a digging. And the Church, like the member who withholds information from his bishop avoids, or delays paying the price for their less than honest behavior. I can see why they are metering out the facts but it doesn’t make it right.

Now, with my active LDS hat still on, what I suggest and what could be done is that more books like Bushmans could be endorsed (or allowed) by the church for private reading so that as Jeff Ricks said above, “members can digest the bad news slowly.” The church could even have a class for “deep doctrinal issues” or “resolving concerns” that meets an hour before or after church. At least it could be offered to investigators or new members after six months in the church, when they are ready for at least a little “meat” after chugging down gallons of the “milk.”

The LDS church needs to sort of “inoculate” their members by making controversial material to them in an LDS context is some way or another, otherwise members will read the controversies in books by those like the Tanners and feel lied to and deceived thinking the church seeks to cover up the truth.

I suggest that if you talk to Dr. bushman that you will discover that all of this is in fact discussed openly in the BYU summer seminars. I was a guest speaker at one seminar session and I was under the impression that the discussion and access to historical sources was wide open. We discussed my expansion theory, the Book of Abraham historicity and my take on LDS theology in general. It was wide open — and I believe that is an appropriate forum. I don’t believe that the Church has any obligation to make sure that every possible fact about Joseph Smith and his polygamy for instance should be discussed in Church or forums of worship. I’m against that because the purpose isn’t to figure out what the heck was going on but to worship and share our faith. I know there are those who want a more open forum of discussion in church meetings where they can openly express and discuss their doubts. I believe there are forums for such discussions; I don’t believe that worship services are the appropriate forum. However, I insist that all who enter the discussion do so honestly.

Let me be very clear. I am not against making anything available but a proponent of it. I believe it should be done responsibly. For example, in light of recent DNA results I am reassessing whether Joseph Smith had any sexual relations with plural wives. We may have assumed too much. That position opens up all kinds of issues. Did Brigham implement sexual relationships whereas previously Joseph had only dynastic marriages? I’m re-reviewing Emma’s statements about the matter as well — she may have been right. (I don’t require any such position to protect my faith; I merely want to satisfy the data now available).

Equality: I’ll look into it. You may know that my brother teaches in the Religious Education at BYU with an emphasis in Church History. He has full access and he will know immediately. I’ll get back to you if I can! I believe that there may be some documents that detail the second anointing ceremony and those who received it that are not open to scholars — and appropriately so in my view. I believe that is what the First Presidency didn’t make available. However, the info is otherwise available. I won’t provide sources however because I share their sense of valuing some things so much that it is none of your business (e.g., like my intimate life). I think one of the reasons we are still in the dark in many ways regarding the practice of polygamy is this sense of propriety and what is sacred and not any desire to keep people in the dark.

My above statement, from my previous comment, is a bit strong. For that I apologize, Blake. Let me try again.

It seems rather presumptuous of you, in my opinion, to imply…[fill in the rest as-is]

Sorry.

The only online source I am aware of for information about the Cowdery history is an old newsletter archived by the Tanners at utlm. It’s from 1982:

“We have been told that there is a very important document being suppressed which may relate to the involvement of the early Mormon leaders in magic. This is a history of the Church written by Oliver Cowdery. Cowdery, of course, was one of the three witnesses to the Book of Mormon. According to Joseph Fielding Smith, he was “appointed to assist Joseph in . . . keeping a history of the Church. . . .” Cowdery kept this record until 1831 when John Whitmer was commanded “to keep the church record and history continually; for Oliver Cowdery I have appointed to another office” (Doctrine and Covenants 47:3). In John Whitmer’s history of the Church, he wrote that “Oliver Cowdery has written the commencement of the church history, commencing at the time of the finding of the plates, up to June 12, 1831″ (John Whitmer’s History, page 4). While Dean C. Jessee said that the Cowdery history “has not been found” (Brigham Young University Studies, Summer 1971, page 461), Church Historian Joseph Fielding Smith, who later became the 10th President of the Church, indicated that it was in the Historian’s Office:

Oliver Cowdery was the first one appointed to assist Joseph in transcribing and keeping a history of the Church; John Whitmer took his place, when Oliver Cowdery was given something else to do. We have on file in the Historian’s Office the records written in the hand writing of Oliver Cowdery, the first historian, or recorder of the Church (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 2, page 201).

We understand that a number of documents which were originally stored in the Church Historian’s Office were later moved to the vault of the First Presidency. This was undoubtedly done to keep them out of the hands of the public. The Mormon leaders were especially concerned about this matter when Dr. Leonard J. Arrington became Church Historian. In any case, we understand that the Cowdery history of the Church (not to be confused with the history that was published in the Messenger and Advocate) is now located in the First Presidency’s vault. At one time an inventory was made of what was contained in the vault. When the Cowdery history was opened, it was discovered that it contained magic characters!

A number of years ago, we tried to get the Church to make Cowdery’s history and other documents available. We were informed by the Assistant Church Historian, however, that Joseph Fielding Smith was “not interested in the project you have in mind” (Letter from A. William Lund, as cited in The Case Against Mormonism, vol. 1, page 77). Since Cowdery’s history is supposed to go back to the time Joseph Smith found the plates, it may contain many things that would be embarrassing to the Church. If any of our readers have any additional information on the contents of Cowdery’s history (especially with regard to the charge that it contains magic characters) we would appreciate hearing about it.”

Now, I have mixed feelings about the Tanners. They have a track record both of finding and bringing to light previously unavailable historical documents. But they also have a writing style that I find unimpressive in many respects. I don’t know how reliable their assertion is that there is a hidden history (not the M&A history but a prior, handwritten document). I don’t know if it’s been found and published since they wrote this.

Blake said:
“The Council of Fifty documents are open to scholars who make application.”

This contradicts my understanding of what Professor Bushman told us at a fireside in the Plano, Texas stake last spring. He indicated that he did not have access to ALL of the Council of Fifty Minutes. But I may have misunderstood on that specific point. However, I am certain that Dr. Bushman said he did NOT have access to all the primary documents in the church’s possession, and that there are some documents that no living historian has seen (since Leonard Arrington passed away in 1999.) I wish I could have gotten this question to John before he finished his interviews with Professor Bushman. It would be nice to have clarification on this issue.

Perhaps we could agree that the church could clear up a lot of the confusion and misinformation on this point simply by cataloguing what is in the First Presidency’s vault, and at least making the catalogue available publicly. They need not throw open the vaults to every Tom, Dick, and Harry who has a curiosity. But they could certainly shed light on what’s there and give access to professional historians. If there are concerns over the fragility of some of the documents, they could be scannned into electronic form and made available online. Taking such steps would go a long way to silencing critics (such as me) who argue that the church is less than forthcoming in sharing the treasures of information contained within its vaults.

I think this is a productive discussion because if I’m right in my accusations then “dummying the books” is a systemic problem within Mormonism and therefore should be talked about until it stops. Whitewashing the problem isn’t going to change anything; it only enables it.

I also want to add that I think this discussion is on topic relative the Bushman’s book and the podcast interview. I applaud Dr. Bushman for making facts more available to the public. I’ve heard that there are some Church leaders who aren’t so happy about his book. In my opinion, it doesn’t speak well of any of them that might feel that way.

I do think Dr. Bushman pulls punches throughout his book. Maybe it’s a carefully calculated metering out the bad news, designed so members can digest the bad news slowly. If so, it’s an understandable approach and I can’t say I fault him for it, all things considered. At least someone is stepping up to the plate to make the un-dummied facts readily available to the members. The Brethren certainly seem to be dragging their feet.

I also had access with Ron Walker to a lot (maybe everything) of material during the Salamander Letter inquiry and I had access to the Church archives (which as far as I know were then and are now available to scholars who make application) as well as Steven Christensen’s personal library on Masonry and so forth at that time. So I just don’t see any attempt to hide documents or issues, but merely to parse them so that they can be dealt with responsibly by those who are at a point in their education and inquiry where they can get to original sources. Dealing with primary sources on these issues is crucial and it is irresponsible in my view to rely even on the work of one who has studied the issues and written about it. That is why Dan Vogel’s documents have been valuable in my view.

Equality, I’m not aware of the Cowdery history to which you refer — though I believe I would have had access to if it existed. Could you give a reference to it? My guess is that you are referring to a source that goes by another name that is in fact available (the Kirtland Minute book or perhaps the patriarchal blessings). The Council of Fifty documents are open to scholars who make application. Virtually all repositories of historical documents limit access to those who will handle them responsibly. I don’t see the Church’s practices being different than other historical repositories where I have done research.

Anyway, thanks for giving me an opportunity to clear up the confusion that I created by my poor choice of wording.

Thanks for the clarification, Blake. I apologize for misunderstanding what you meant.

Your experience may have been very different, and that may be the root of the different views on this.

For me, I see a very close resemblance in the Enron scenario and the way I came to discover the disturbing, previously undisclosed history of the church. One could argue that the scenario is dissimilar because the documents/history were available at the COB, church vaults, etc…but I don’t know that that’s completely true. While I’ve never personally tried to get access to source material relative to the roots of the church, my understanding is that not just anyone can walk up to the vault and ask someone to point them in the direction of anything they wish to see. “Warts” have sometimes only been exposed after someone on the inside was given access to otherwise unavailable information. Maybe I’m completely wrong here, maybe everything has always been available.

Even if the information has always been available (and I’m not conceding that it has been), how come so much relevance never made it to the church’s fundamental accounting statements (in the form of lesson manuals, missionary discussions, institute manuals)? So much of what I have recently learned is directly and precisely related to my previous convictions about the church. The only way I discovered it was through digging through not publicly (at church, institute, etc) available documents. I guess you’re right, I didn’t need a Federal Grand Jury Subpoena – but almost .

I think the purpose of financial statements is to fully disclose to investors the assets/liabilities, strengths & weaknesses of any particular company…..not to gloss over (or not mention at all) anything that doesn’t make the institution’s stock increase in value. This is the case even if the information being disclosed is unsavory or otherwise harmful to the company.

Maybe one implication of this argument should be clarified. I’m not so sure I’m saying church leaders compare to Enron executives….especially when comparing intentions. I’m only saying that the scenario – for me – is very similar.

Blake, this is good news. I didn’t realize this was the case. I am looking for the complete Council of Fifty Minutes from the Nauvoo period and after. I understand that Professor Bushman was not given access to these records for Rough Stone Rolling. It’s good to know they are now available. Can you point me to where I might find them?

Also, I am interested in seeing the history of the church that was written by Oliver Cowdery in the 1830s. When Joseph Fielding Smith was church historian (way back when) he indicated that such a history existed and was in the possession of the church. Professor Bushman did not cite this source in Rough Stone Rolling and, indeed, I have not seen it referenced in any other scholarly monographs on Joseph Smith and early Mormonism. It is good to know that this history is now available. Can you direct me to the archive, library, book, or online repository where I might peruse its contents? Thanks.

When Professor Bushman visited my stake for a fireside shortly after RSR was published, he indicated that there were historical documents in the church’s possession to which he was not given access. He asked Leonard Arrington about it, who told him that he (Arrington) had seen everything in the vaults and that there was nothing that would shake anyone’s testimony. Professor Bushman related this story as he assured his audience that there was nothing in the hidden documents that we should worry our pretty little heads about. But this was last Spring. If you’re information is correct, it sounds like things have changed.

I look forward to being able to read the Cowdery history and the Council of Fifty minutes, Blake. Thanks for the info.

However, this fact is what makes the Enron case completely different from the Church’s case because the information regarding Church History is publicly available and from Church published sources. Thanks John for letting me make that clarification?

It’s kinda strayed from the main idea of the post (the interview w/ Bushman).

Nothing personal, and please come back!

I find your logic and your tactics a little bit hard to understand. To me, it’s completely unreasonable to say that our church has not concealed critical elements of her history. For me, the challenge hasn’t been so much the version that I never heard before, the issue has been that I feel that the other version was kept from me from men I once revered.

Jeff’s comments are right….at a basic level, the way the church has handled critical information does resemble Enron. And I say that not as someone who wants to damage the church….I have to say that because I feel it would be intellectually dishonest to not call a spade a spade. Just like it would be unfair for a company like Enron to report only revenues and assets to investors (or to hide critical information that would reveal the warning signs, risks & liabilities to investors) it’s equally unfair for the church to report an “asset/revenue only” view of church history (dissimulation). People are making life changing decisions and building a spiritual base with the information they are getting from the church (similar to Enron investors?). People are taking this information at face value. How can people (investigators, church members) be expected to make educated, wise decisions without all of the information? We wouldn’t expect investors to do it – in fact, I’m hard pressed to think of any legitimate transaction, interaction, etc., where standards don’t require full disclosure.

It’s not the individual’s fault for not “searching these things out” – until the advent of the internet, who had the time to spend days in a corner library at the COB or BYU? Especially when searching and finding anything that is contrary to “official doctrine” is criticized by church leaders as not “faith promoting”, “negative” or by definition “anti-mormon”…

With all the teaching the church does – teaching where church history is elemental (3 hours every Sunday, FHE, mutual lessons, Home Teaching, Seminary, General Conference, etc., etc., etc.) one would think there would be time to at least provide the facts.

To answer the question of when this should be disclosed….Blake, I don’t think primary is the place to start teaching Fanny Alger. But the “milk before meat” doctrine is only valid if there is a place within the church where people can get a steak. It’s hard to understand why the church would promote milk only….while accepting the idea that members who want meat will have to go to somewhere else to get it – especially when the objective of some meat providers is to serve a meal laced with cyanide.

Finally, why are you calling names? Jeff is simply expressing an opinion (one that you may learn something from if you were to come off the offensive and try to listen). I know it’s hard for me to focus on any of the substance of an argument when there’s so much of theatrics in the presentation. I doubt that’s your goal….you seem like an intelligent person. The fact that people can come to any one of John’s sites and openly discuss issues with those who may disagree/see things differently is a rare treat….shouldn’t we be kind and respectful of others’ views so that they feel free to express them in the future?

Of course they didn’t use the argument, Blake. Like I said, the judge would have laughed a them if they did!

Blake:“The problem is precisely that the information wasn’t available publicly because Enron’s own accountants had dummied the books.”

Exactly Blake! Kind of like the Church when they “dummied the books” by altering a quote by Brigham Young to refer to his “wife” instead of what the original text actually said: “wives.” Or, dummying the books by conveniently leaving pertinent information out of lesson manuals. They do dummy the books, Blake. There are many examples where they intentionally have and and still do. Your argument doesn’t hold water, I’m afraid.

Blake:“[Y]ou couldn’t get it if you tried.”

Don’t you think you’re being a little unnecessarily rude, Blake? It’s typical of many Mormon apologists though. If their arguments fail them they resort to personal attacks. Not a very good example of Mormonism, don’t you think?

If you’re going to make a comparison at least get it accurate. Isn’t it more like my teaching Leibniz’s logical calculus but waiting until the third class in logic to do it? I don’t shove down their throats what they just aren’t ready to handle and understand. When do you think we should start talking about polygamy — in Primary perhaps? I say let members search it out. This is high powered history where sifting through the evidence takes some background in assessing evidence and canons of historical research. I just don’t see handing it to a group that doesn’t care about history but about the growth of the kingdom.

R.K. — It is a simple fact that at our vantage point we actually have a better feel for what happened in Kirtland — along with the rest of the nation. If they thought there was fraud or accused someone of it, they were making false and inaccurate judgments — just as you are now doing. I’m sorry if you now choose to exist and undergo the pain of breaking up a family. I’m glad that I don’t fact that decision because I am quite comfortable being committed to the Church — knowing quite as much about its history I dare say as you do. If people become dis-illusioned about a naive faith, then good. But don’t forget that there is a more mature faith that can take its place and it doesn’t require jettisoning the Church or commitments to the truth.

Are you the same J.D. Ricks who writes frequent letters to the editor in the Herald Journal?

(Like you and John, I too live in Cache Valley).

Tom

————————————-

Like I said in a previous comment Blake, people have a right to accurate information and shouldn’t have to be scholars to find it, whether thy are stockholders of Enron or members of the Mormon Church. Your excuse that the information is available to anyone who want’s to dig for is a poor excuse. If attorneys for Enron presented such an excuse the judge would probably laugh at them.

Claiming that the Church isn’t in the business of teaching history is also a poor excuse. As long as the Church publishes or sponsors accounts of the Joseph Smith story, whether in missionary discussions, visitors center depictions, pamphlets, books or movies, the Church is in the business of teaching history and is therefore responsible to the public do a least a reasonably accurate job of laying out the significant facts, but they don’t. They intentionally spin and alter the facts to suit their purposes. Examples of the wide disparity between reality and their spin are everywhere within Mormonism.

“And I just think it is hard to believe that that the man entrusted with the greatest responsibility since Jesus Christ was on the earth would be so wrapped up in things like bank fraud….” You have concluded that Joseph was involved in bank fraud. What does that mean? That he knowingly was in concert with or an accessory to bank fraud? I’m an attorney. I know a bit about bank fraud — and I’ve research what the banking rules and charters provided in Joseph’s time. Where is fraud? Where is the evidence implicating Joseph Smith in the fraud? I thought that Bushman was much tougher on Joseph than the evidence warranted and yet he stopped miles short of the conclusion you jump to — i.e., that Joseph was involved in bank fraud. Your assertion is not only uncharitable to Joseph, it really isn’t supported.

“marrying other men’s wives after he sent them on missions, hiding it from his wife, having affairs with servant girls in his own house.” First off, you’re taking Sarah Pratt’s side of the “married other man’s wifes while on missions” story and there is quite a bit to suggest that Sarah is the one stretching the facts here; not Joseph. How do you know? Second, the notion that Joseph “had an affair” with Fanny Alger is also uncharitable. There is reliable evidence showing that Joseph had a marriage ceremony with her that was performed by Levi Hancock. Call that an affair if you like — but I believe Joseph’s story is quite consistent. We don’t know if he did this first without Emma’s knowledge or not — and we know why he didn’t include Emma in later marriages after he had tried to tell her.

You see, what you really assert are moral jdugments based on at least uncertain conclusions. That of course is your right — but why would you make such judgments? In making moral assessments you are necessarily going beyond the evidence and assessing it based on your own judgment of right and wrong.

Often times the facts on which you base the moral judgment are not merely questionable but simply off-base. You say for example that you find it difficult to believe that he was “trying to sell the copyright to the greatest book to come since the bible.” Why is that difficult to believe? When the Church recently sold a right (a copyright right) to Doubleday to publish the Book of Mormon, did it betray some fundamental? Given the dire financial straits of the Church and the need to financially support new members, why isn’t that seen as laudable? You see it is just your moral assessment and not an historical fact that you find troubling.

You are willing to make an assessment such as that Joseph was: “generally acting very egotistical and arrogant.” Well, if he didn’t sometimes act this way, I’d be surprised. But how is that anything more than your judgment? Why haven’t you focused for instance on the fact that Joseph’s businesses failed because he was so generous he gave away more than he should have to stay viable? Why don’t you focus on the remarkable fact — and it is a fact — that there is no evidence that he ever questioned his calling even once. He never expressed doubt that God had called him to go through what he was experiencing. I find that to be truly remarkable. In the end, I suggest that the difference between history and moral judgment are very small — and moral assessment isn’t history, it’s sheer judgment. Especially your own recounting of the history is not history, but judgment.

Further, I disagree with Jeff Ricks that the church is trying to Keep information from members”. How could it? There have always been discussions of everything reported in Bushman’s biography in other sources published by the Church (such as BYU Studies for example). However, the church wisely leaves it to those who seek such scholarly publications for themselves to assess the evidence. The Church is well aware that its mission isn’t to write or teach history, but to focus on those aspects of our collective experience that move the kingdom forward. Focus doesn’t mean that other things aren’t discussed openly and honestly; it means that it isn’t the focus. I could provide you with articles and books published by Church-related sources that discuss at length the issues Jeff believes haven’t been discussed — or that it is affirmatively trying to hide. That too is an uncharitable view.

In fact, I have discussed some of these issues (and others) with some Church leaders. Those who suggest that Church leaders really aren’t believers and they are in fact decievers are themselves simply unchariable and deceived. It just ain’t so. (That’s nice way of saying those who say such things ought to take a long look in the mirror to see who is deceiving whom).

I am familiar with Joseph Smith’s life and the issues and sources. What frustrated me about Bushman is that I knew a lot more about virtually everything he wrote about (and so did he) and wanted more discussion and interpretive assistance with the mountain of evidence to be considered. In the end, a single volume biography can only say and do so much.

——————————–
John D said:“Why can’t DAMU folks just say (after working through the pain/disappointment), ‘Hey…it’s not for me, but I respect those who decide it works for them, and the leaders who are trying the best they can to make it work today.’”
__________________

John, I agree with this and by the same token, why can’t members who choose to stay say, “Hey…its fine if it’s not for them. I still respect them and value them as a human being.” But the truth is, most of those who leave automatically get labeled a number of disparaging labels and are treated in ways they don’t deserve.

Last year the manager of the Logan newspaper, Bruce Smith, wrote a very offensive piece where he ran down people who leave the Church. He made statements such as, “[people who leave the church] insist on having conversations with everyone they come in contact with about why they left the church…they are obsessed with trying to convince everyone who they come in contact with that they made a smart, educated choice when they left the church.” I hope your readers can see how grossly exaggerated and offensive that is. It’s a reflection of Mormon culture in general in terms of how they view and treat people who leave. I responded to Bruce in a follow-up essay (that was published a few days later) by challenging him to point out one person who fits his description. He never responded. He also never apologized.

More often than not, family members who remain members exhibit some of the meanest and most un-Christ-like behavior toward people who leave the Church. I’ve heard some real heart-breaking accounts. I’ve experience some of that myself and it hurts. For example, my sister told me she doesn’t want me to be around her children anymore. She and a brother once told me that they wouldn’t come to a family reunion if I was going to be there. Why? Because in her words, now I’m an “anti-Mormon.”

Please understand that most of the anger that gets vented from time to time on the internet and elsewhere is the result of ongoing mistreatment that people who leave have to endure from people who stay. It has little to do with the need to justify why we left, which is the reason many Mormons assume.

I like that you’re trying to build bridges John. So am I but from a different perspective. You want former Mormons to ease up on Mormons. I want to see Mormons ease up on former Mormons. There’s a huge chasm that needs to be bridged and there are a lot of people being hurt and misjudged in the meantime. Knowing you John, I’m sure you’ll agree.

Be honest–don’t you do this too? Don’t we all?
_________________________

John, a couple more points, and I’m not trying to argue, I’m only trying to point out my perspective. As you know, we understand each other better when we can see through each others eyes.

Yes, I’ll withhold information from people that I don’t think they need to of want to know. I don’t need to let people know that when I’m alone I have no problem burping out a song after downing a soft drink. Please don’t tell anyone.

But the kind of information that the brethren are trying to keep from members (as evidenced by their ongoing promotion of a distorted version of its history and its founders) is more along the lines of Enron executives keeping information from its stockholders. In Enron’s case, people were investing their hard-earned money into the corporation based on information that was misrepresented to them. In the case of the Church people are not only investing their money, but their lives and their children’s lives as well, based on information that is continually misrepresented to them. People have a right to accurate information and shouldn’t have to be scholars to get it. The brethren have no more right to withhold or minimize information than do Enron executives. In the real world people are sent to prison for such crimes. In Mormonism they are excused. So, I don’t think the fact that we all withhold information is a valid excuse for the brethren’s behavior.

Darron Smith made a good point in his interview that touches on this. The Church expects members to confess their sins, repent and ask for forgiveness. The leaders of the Church, off all people, should be held to the same standard. I respect the Church leaders in the areas of their lives where respect is deserved but I don’t whitewash areas of their lives where they I think they have some confessing, repenting, and asking forgiveness to do. If former Mormons focus on he negative behaviors its because too many members are whitewashing them. Someone needs to hold them to their own standards.

If you view me as a troublemaker on your site please let me know and I won’t post here anymore. I want to remain friends and won’t be angry if my views are not appropriate for this venue.

John, I agree with this and by the same token, why can’t members who choose to stay say, “Hey…its fine if it’s not for them. I still respect them and value them as a human being.” But the truth is, most of those who leave automatically get labeled a number of disparaging labels and are treated in ways they don’t deserve.

Last year the manager of the Logan newspaper, Bruce Smith, wrote a very offensive piece where he ran down people who leave the Church. He made statements such as, “[people who leave the church] insist on having conversations with everyone they come in contact with about why they left the church…they are obsessed with trying to convince everyone who they come in contact with that they made a smart, educated choice when they left the church.” I hope your readers can see how grossly exaggerated and offensive that is. It’s a reflection of Mormon culture in general in terms of how they view and treat people who leave. I responded to Bruce in a follow-up essay (that was published a few days later) by challenging him to point out one person who fits his description. He never responded. He also never apologized.

More often than not, family members who remain members exhibit some of the meanest and most un-Christ-like behavior toward people who leave the Church. I’ve heard some real heart-breaking accounts. I’ve experience some of that myself and it hurts. For example, my sister told me she doesn’t want me to be around her children anymore. She and a brother once told me that they wouldn’t come to a family reunion if I was going to be there. Why? Because in her words, now I’m an “anti-Mormon.”

Please understand that most of the anger that gets vented from time to time on the internet and elsewhere is the result of ongoing mistreatment that people who leave have to endure from people who stay. It has little to do with the need to justify why we left, which is the reason many Mormons assume.

I like that you’re trying to build bridges John. So am I but from a different perspective. You want former Mormons to ease up on Mormons. I want to see Mormons ease up on former Mormons. There’s a huge chasm that needs to be bridged and there are a lot of people being hurt and misjudged in the meantime. Knowing you John, I’m sure you’ll agree.

A couple of small points….

–I agree that there is a cost to not telling the full history. Not just for the church, but in our marriages, in the U.S., and for humanity as a whole. Again, this is not an exclusively Mormon problem. We (as humans) tend to glorify selected past leaders, and we tend to leave out the messy stuff. Muslims do it. Catholics do it. Buddhists do it. Atheists do it. Ex and Post-Mormons do it. And we do it. Yes there are consequences to this, but I believe that they are measured ones. We each have to decide how much of the “truth” we want to tell–and what the cost will be.

–I believe that the Brethren in the past have made a simple calculation–it’s better to de-emphasize the messy stuff than to risk losing people. They believe that the church is true (and/or good), and they believe that people are (on average) happier with the church in their lives, than without it. And so they optimize what they do accordingly.

Be honest–don’t you do this too? Don’t we all?

–Your comment about the bretheren being “no more special than a college president” doesn’t quite follow for me. At the end of the day, people choose to follow the brethren. If the brethren started teaching tomorrow that we should all drink poison, they’d lose at least 3/4 of their membership, maybe more. I feel like the brethren receive honor/respect (at least in part) because they say/do the things that earn respect among the members. So just because they can’t see the future like we may have thought, or don’t talk w/ God in the ways we might have imagined–doesn’t have to mean that their worth is exponentially diminished.

I work at a university–and even as a heterodox Mormon–I value Gordon B. Hinckley and the Q12 50x more than I do the president of USU (no offense, Stan).

Anyway, just some thoughts.

I totally get where you are coming from, but I think that there’s a “Fowler-like Level 5″ perspective that we would all do well to shoot for–which strives to understand more than to condemn.

I don’t fault folks for deciding the church is not for them. But I do wish that those who decided to leave would do at least 3 things…

–Speak about the church in a balanced way, acknowledging the good as they enumerate the bad.

–Speak about the church leaders with more love, empathy and respect. They are not even close to the demonic, evil men that they are portrayed in the DAMU

–Acknowledge that reasonable people can disagree as to the importance of the church in their lives. I would love to hear DAMU folks express respect for folks who decide to stay in the church.

Instead, it so often is, “The brethren are evil/corrupt. Joseph Smith was evil. TBMs are all dupes. The church has a horrible influence on mankind.”

Why can’t DAMU folks just say (after working through the pain/disappointment), “Hey…it’s not for me, but I respect those who decide it works for them, and the leaders who are trying the best they can to make it work today.”

That’s what I’d love to see/hear.

And you know that I honor/respect/value you and your perspective. I’m just venting.

I enjoy your website John, and I think you’re offering a needed service to the Mormon community. People need a place where they can talk out their issues and concerns about the Church without fearing that their membership is in jeopardy.

My main purpose in posting here, I think for the first time, is that as I’ve listened to Bushman one thing really jumped out at me and I want to see what others here think. The Bushman version of the Joseph Smith story is significantly different from the version that the current Church leadership promotes to the public. No matter how you slice it, that doesn’t speak very well of the Brethren. In other words, if Bushman is essentially correct in his version of Joseph Smith, then the Brethren are either [not telling the [complete] truth] or are so ill-informed that it cast doubt on their ability to perform the role of prophets, seers and revelators. If the Brethren are right and Bushman is wrong then the onus is on the Brethren to explain how the evidence can differ so widely from their version…and they’re not saying a word about that.

I guess my point is, while Bushman’s book might help someone with a struggling testimony to find a toehold, it seems to also be destroying his or her handhold. Bushman’s book as, well as many other books published about Mormonism in the last few years, seems to leave the member who wants to stay a member one choice: Set the Church hierarchy aside as men who are no more special than, say a college president, then move forward with the understanding that Mormonism is like any other Christian religion and no better.

The real crisis in the Church is a crisis for the brethren. I see no graceful, face saving way out of the dilemma that they must inevitably face. The chickens have come home to roost.

I agree with you that it’s important to get all of the facts especially for decisions as important as your religious beliefs and affiliations. It is unfortunate that one must generally go outside church approved materials to get all of the facts that are known about the church’s history — although Rough and Rolling Stone is probably one of the good exceptions to this general rule.

You know, it’s possible the average church member doesn’t have a testimony of Joseph Smith per se so much as a testimony of an idealized version of the historical figure. As John mentions, this sort of thing isn’t specific to Mormonism but I would agree that it’s too bad nonetheless.

When I first discovered some of the more troubling aspects of the church’s history, I felt angry and betrayed. I seriously considered leaving the church. I have a friend who happened to discover this information at the same time (independently) who actually did leave the church.

Both of us went through the subsequent stages of grief until we finally landed at acceptance. He is still out of the church and I am still in it. But our views on life and God aren’t that far apart now. In many ways, I believe he has found renewed appreciation for the church from outside.

I’m not making a point, just sharing my story. I guess the only advice I’d offer for people struggling with a crisis of faith resulting from discovering this information is to allow yourself to grieve and then keep an open mind.

You’ll struggle to find a person more sympathetic to gays and singles and divorces than myself. I have several close family members who are gay, my parents were divorced, etc.

Those issues are real.

All I’m trying to say is–this is not exclusively a Mormon thing. It’s a human thing. There’s good in the church, and there are holes in the church. I’m not arguing that the church works for everyone.

But I struggle with those who want to throw it all away, or do drive by character or organizational assassination–claiming that the church doesn’t work for anyone at any time. It clearly does. And often times, to cater to one group, you automatically alienate others.

So for a gay person or a single person that doesn’t feel welcome in the church–they totally need to do what uplifts them spiritually. And we (who remain inside the church) need to work extra hard to figure out how to make them welcome.

But no one should claim that it’s all horrible, and a fraud–because that’s not true either. It’s an imperfect, yet good intentioned church–that does a lot of good, and some bad.

Just like its founder, perhaps.

And just like each of us.

No?

But

While in the Church I experienced (myself or through others) being single into my early 40s, never-married gay or straight members, young widows who didn’t date because their husbands wanted to be sealed in the temple, etc.

Were it not for Joseph and his teachings, the choices of whether to marry in the temple or not, how to live as a moral, godfearing gay person, among other decisions would not carry the weight and burden that so oppress SO many people who BELIEVE in the gospel.

If Joseph was lying, THESE PEOPLE NEED TO KNOW so they can get on with their lives.

The more I study and try to understand all sides–the more I begin to feel like we are all experiencing, in real time, a mini-laboratory of the human condition. Nothing in this Mormon history dilemma is in any way unique to Mormonism. It’s something that humans are grappling with around the globe–in all cultures, and in all locales.

I really like what Greg Prince said in one of my first podcasts. There really are no black hats, and there really are no white hats. Just shades of grey. In them, and in us.

Whatever we think of Joseph now was shaped largely by the actions and writings of those who lived on long after his death–those who were able to write, and rewrite the history. The extent to which we’ve glorified or demonized Joseph is in no way unique to Mormonism. We’ve done it with Thomas Jefferson, Benedict Arnold, Abe Lincoln, Warren G. Harding, FDR, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan–and any other “hero” or “goat” you want to throw our way.

When someone calls Joseph a fraud–they are missing a great deal of his life and character.

When someone calls him a saint–same thing.

I think the musical Wicked Says it all:

“A man’s called a traitor, or liberator.
A rich man’s a thief, or philanthropist.
Is one a crusader, or ruthless invader?
It’s all in what label, is able to persist.
There are precious few at ease
with moral ambiguities
So we act as though they don’t exist.”

Joseph did some amazing things.

He also made some huge mistakes–by his own admission.

No one will ever be able to prove, or disprove any heavenly experience he may, or may not have had.

Those who want to believe, will.

Those who do not want to believe, will not.

It really is that simple.

But I’m way past the discussions of true/false, or hero/villain. Not only are they impossible to determine, but they’ve become boring.

Instead of making judgments, I simply want to understand. I want to learn, try to observe as compassionately as I can, and withhold too much judgment.

You are absolutely, 100% right in saying that what we were told growing up about our history was, in many way, inaccurate. But again–that is not unique to Mormonism. The U.S. or World history we’re taught is undeniably fraudulent and skewed 20 ways from Sunday. Your parents haven’t told you everything about their lives, and I bet you and I have a thing or two we’ve hidden from even the closet we love. I am 100% with you in the honesty you would expect from your children–and I want that too (and try to offer it)–but it’s a standard that probably wouldn’t hold much absolute water with many of us, at least in our darkest of hours.

I’m not excusing evil–or trying to dismiss your concerns. I’ve felt them deeply–and consider them legitimate. Laudable, even.

But today, we all face reality. We have families. Communities. We have history and culture. We have a set of values. And we have our faith. And we all have to decide where to place it.

As for me, I no longer am searching for monolithic heroes. I’ve met Bill Gates. I’ve met Orrin Hatch. I’ve met Ezra Taft Benson. They’re all complex. They’re all good — and flawed — simultaneously.

So now I just want to understand. And I want to help others understand.

Less judgment. Less binary thinking. More compassion. More empathy.

Sounds cheesy, I know. But it’s how I hope people view my life when I’m gone. Heaven knows I’ll need it.

If we open our minds and hearts to truly try to understand Joseph–I think we will find a great deal of courage, love, and good intent. And we will also find moments of weakness, pride, and incompetence–sometimes egregiously so. But if we’re willing to suspend the binary thinking, and discard the labels–I strongly believe that we will not only come to understand and even love Joseph better–but we will come to understand and love ourselves as well. And maybe even those around us.

And I think that the Dream Mine would be fun to do a podcast about. But I don’t know anyone to recommend for that.

I had an uncle, who passed away several years ago, who was on a constant search for the Aztec gold that Hernan Cortes had supposedly buried down in Southern Utah. He lived in Kanab so he could spend quite a bit of time in that pursuit. He would go through elaborate pre-discovery measures and persevere in trying to find it. As I recall, he even claimed he had found “something” on several occasions buried deep in the ground with the aid of some kind of modern electronic detection system, but he could never quite get to the treasure.

He was moderately wealthy but it’s safe to say he never got the wealth from discovering Aztec gold. He got his money in the construction/contracting field.

My uncle never felt he was burned by the treasure hunting experience. He had quite a bit of fun.

There’s all kinds of psychologies out there, so when you ask a question like “How could somebody do X, Y or Z,” I never discount the possibilities that something can be perceived outside of my version of rationality.

Heck, there’s still people pursuing Bishop Koyle’s Dream Mine!

Thanks Jared! And I’d love to do something on science sometime soon. Let me know if you’re ever interested.

I am enjoying these quite a bit. I just want to compliment you on your interviewing; I think you’ve asked some great questions–sometimes ones that I would ask–so it almost feels like I am the one talking with him. Keep up the good work, and add me to the list of people who would like to thank Dr. Bushman.