My brother has been reading anti/critical material about the church lately and now thinks he no longer believes in the BofM, Joseph Smith, etc. I’m trying to gently bring him back. He and I have decided to have an open dialog about his concerns. What general advice can you offer?
2 Responses to “My brother has been reading anti/critical material about…”
Felipe Prado
2013-09-07 23:11:53
Hi friend. It must be really hard to see your brother struggling like this. My heart goes out to you. If I understand correctly, your brother's struggles with the church aren't related to personal sins (in which case I might recommend this article) or problems with other members (in which case I might recommend "Why the Church is as True as the Gospel"). He seems to have systematic problems with questions related to history and historicity. Here are some of my thoughts, for what they're worth.
Gaining a Testimony of the True True Church
The one on the left was the whiner.
Many people spend their entire lives gaining a testimony of a slightly fictitious version of the True Church. In this version of the church, pioneer children always sang as they waked and walked and walked. Early church leaders weren't flawed human beings. They were perfect puppets, with God, the puppet master, forcing them to utter His divine message without any human alterations or interpretations. People generally like this kind of church because it's simple. The problem is, no church with mortal leaders and members can ever be truly perfect.
Just the same, there are a lot of people who view the church this way. Many of them are very good people. I'm not the one who gets to decide these kinds of things, but I suspect a lot of them are going to make it to the Celestial Kingdom. I think it's far better to "over-esteem" the church than it is to start criticizing inspired (albeit imperfect) leaders who, frankly, are doing a fantastic job of running things more or less the way God wants them run. Since Jesus is really in the business of saving people, and I fancy myself His disciple, I don't necessarily feel compelled to make people see the church as "less divine," especially since God really does have His hand in this marvelous work.
The problem comes when someone who has a testimony of this slightly fictitious version of the church begins to study the more troubling aspects of Mormon history. I do want to be clear here when I talk about "troubling aspects." Church history is not one troubling story after another, as the anti-Mormons would have you believe. Lies and distortions about our history are so commonplace that it can be truly difficult to sort out what actually happened from what is claimed to have happened. Nevertheless, I'll be the first to admit that I find some actual events/doctrines/practices (e.g., polygamy, the priesthood restriction) to be troubling.
Fortunately, these things don't bother me much because I lost my testimony of the fictitious "true church" a long time ago, and there's nothing wrong with that (though it's not necessarily for everyone). The key is to never loose your testimony of the true true church. Yeah, some of the pioneer children were whiners, but that doesn't mean the true church isn't still true.
In 1820, Joseph Smith had a vision of God the Father and Jesus Christ. They instructed him to restore Christ's ancient church in modern times.
Consider Joseph Smith as a more serious example of what I mean. Was he some de facto demi-God who took the church from its infancy to full maturity in one inexorable march towards progress, never once plagued by a spiritual or administrative misstep? No. Joseph Smith was a prophet of God who restored Christ's ancient gospel, but he was also a mortal man who lived in what, by modern standards, was a primitive society. God was probably chuckling through much of the process, but He really had no choice but to prepare and communicate with this primitive man in ways he could understand. Magical thinking was common in Joseph's day; perhaps God took advantage of that, arranging for Joseph to find buried plates just like the buried treasures he'd searched for as a youth. Young Joseph wasn't ready for direct revelation from God; perhaps God provided Him with "props" (e.g., the seer stone, the urim and thumim, a papyrus scroll) to boost his confidence. Only later (e.g., Book of Moses) was Joseph sufficiently trained to operate without these aids.
The vast majority of Joseph's teachings are so beautiful and, from my viewpoint, doubtlessly inspired, but perhaps he occasionally misspoke. Could it be that, given his zeal to restore the ancient ways, his implementation of polygamy was less than perfect? Maybe. Could it be that he made mistakes as Nauvoo's secular leader? Likely. For me, these missteps inspire faith. If God managed to bring to fruition so marvelous a work as this through a flawed mortal man, perhaps He could do something through me as well. (Though, admittedly, I bring far less to the table than Joseph did!)
Isn't it funny how Catholics technically believe the Pope is infallible but act as if he isn't, and Mormons technically know their prophets are fallible but act as if they aren't? As Elder Holland recently said, "Except in the case of His only perfect Begotten Son, imperfect people are all God has ever had to work with. That must be terribly frustrating to Him, but He deals with it. So should we."
Some people, when they "discover" the church's history (as if it hasn't been there all along), decide to blame the church. Many of these people have very sincere and tender feelings, but this blaming is really an evasion of personal responsibility. The Church's primary goal is to help people come to Christ. Now, Church manuals and leaders will sometimes draw upon elements of church history to try to achieve that goal, but the church is not and has never claimed to be a historical society. Most members simply don't care nearly as much about the history as they do about the practical spiritual blessings the gospel provides. If you care about the controversial aspects of Mormon history, it's your responsibility to learn about them from reliable sources. It's not the church's responsibility to hand feed them to you. If that's what floats your boat, Deseret Book has plenty of supplemental texts to help (e.g., "Rough Stone Rolling," "Massacre at Mountain Meadows," etc.).
Knowing What a Good Mormon has to Believe
Occasionally I'll see someone who's troubled by "doctrine" that isn't actually essential to our belief. Our faith is unique in that we reject any formal creed. Consequently, it's quite surprising how few beliefs are strictly "required" in Mormonism. Pretty much the only time we Mormons are "required" to profess our beliefs (as if professing a creed) is when we participate in baptismal and temple-recommend interviews. As an example, here are just a few of the "doctrines" that temple-going Mormons are not required to profess:
The belief that we can progress to become more like God.
The belief that the Book of Mormon (or the Book of Abraham) is historically accurate, rather than being an extended, divinely inspired allegory.
The belief that polygamy was commanded by God.
Now it just so happens that I believe in eternal progression, that the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham are generally historically accurate, and that polygamy, while perhaps imperfectly executed, was a commandment back in the day. But I also acknowledge that others can have different opinions on these and other issues while still being "good," temple-"worthy" Mormons. It's hard for me to understand why anyone would leave the church over issues that are not even central to our actual beliefs.
Seeing Religion like We See Science
Finally, I think people should view religion more like they view science. Of course I'm biased since I'm a scientist myself, but for me true religion and true science differ only in what constitutes "evidence." In science, evidence is limited to that which is observable, reproducible, and measurable. In religion, evidence can also come from supernatural/revelatory sources.
So how does science work? Is it a single inexorable march to greater and greater truth? Certainly not. Scientists are constantly making mistakes. Fortunately, science (ideally) is a self-correcting system. For every two steps forward, there's only one step back (on a good day). Over the years, by identifying and correcting mistaken ideas, by trying to fit more and more pieces of scientific evidence into our models of the universe, we slowly approach the "Truth."
Religion should be seen in the same light. It, too, is a self-correcting process whereby humans try their best to assemble and process evidence. Humans are flawed, so their analyses will at times be flawed. That doesn't mean there isn't overall progress towards Truth, nor does it mean that much of what we've already discovered isn't true. The progress of both science and religion is more like a ship than a train. The path isn't fixed. We may deviate slightly from the right course occasionally, but we're generally headed in the right direction.
I hope this answer helps! Best of luck to you and your brother. I'll pray for you both.
Anonymous
2013-09-12 16:30:58
Thanks so much for your comments Felipe Prado. You make some very good points that resonate well with me. I hope to help my brother understand some of those same points as I attempt to help him expand the scope of the journey for "truth" that he is on.
Gaining a Testimony of the True True Church
Many people spend their entire lives gaining a testimony of a slightly fictitious version of the True Church. In this version of the church, pioneer children always sang as they waked and walked and walked. Early church leaders weren't flawed human beings. They were perfect puppets, with God, the puppet master, forcing them to utter His divine message without any human alterations or interpretations. People generally like this kind of church because it's simple. The problem is, no church with mortal leaders and members can ever be truly perfect.
Just the same, there are a lot of people who view the church this way. Many of them are very good people. I'm not the one who gets to decide these kinds of things, but I suspect a lot of them are going to make it to the Celestial Kingdom. I think it's far better to "over-esteem" the church than it is to start criticizing inspired (albeit imperfect) leaders who, frankly, are doing a fantastic job of running things more or less the way God wants them run. Since Jesus is really in the business of saving people, and I fancy myself His disciple, I don't necessarily feel compelled to make people see the church as "less divine," especially since God really does have His hand in this marvelous work.
The problem comes when someone who has a testimony of this slightly fictitious version of the church begins to study the more troubling aspects of Mormon history. I do want to be clear here when I talk about "troubling aspects." Church history is not one troubling story after another, as the anti-Mormons would have you believe. Lies and distortions about our history are so commonplace that it can be truly difficult to sort out what actually happened from what is claimed to have happened. Nevertheless, I'll be the first to admit that I find some actual events/doctrines/practices (e.g., polygamy, the priesthood restriction) to be troubling.
Fortunately, these things don't bother me much because I lost my testimony of the fictitious "true church" a long time ago, and there's nothing wrong with that (though it's not necessarily for everyone). The key is to never loose your testimony of the true true church. Yeah, some of the pioneer children were whiners, but that doesn't mean the true church isn't still true.
The vast majority of Joseph's teachings are so beautiful and, from my viewpoint, doubtlessly inspired, but perhaps he occasionally misspoke. Could it be that, given his zeal to restore the ancient ways, his implementation of polygamy was less than perfect? Maybe. Could it be that he made mistakes as Nauvoo's secular leader? Likely. For me, these missteps inspire faith. If God managed to bring to fruition so marvelous a work as this through a flawed mortal man, perhaps He could do something through me as well. (Though, admittedly, I bring far less to the table than Joseph did!)
Isn't it funny how Catholics technically believe the Pope is infallible but act as if he isn't, and Mormons technically know their prophets are fallible but act as if they aren't? As Elder Holland recently said, "Except in the case of His only perfect Begotten Son, imperfect people are all God has ever had to work with. That must be terribly frustrating to Him, but He deals with it. So should we."
Some people, when they "discover" the church's history (as if it hasn't been there all along), decide to blame the church. Many of these people have very sincere and tender feelings, but this blaming is really an evasion of personal responsibility. The Church's primary goal is to help people come to Christ. Now, Church manuals and leaders will sometimes draw upon elements of church history to try to achieve that goal, but the church is not and has never claimed to be a historical society. Most members simply don't care nearly as much about the history as they do about the practical spiritual blessings the gospel provides. If you care about the controversial aspects of Mormon history, it's your responsibility to learn about them from reliable sources. It's not the church's responsibility to hand feed them to you. If that's what floats your boat, Deseret Book has plenty of supplemental texts to help (e.g., "Rough Stone Rolling," "Massacre at Mountain Meadows," etc.).
Knowing What a Good Mormon has to Believe
Occasionally I'll see someone who's troubled by "doctrine" that isn't actually essential to our belief. Our faith is unique in that we reject any formal creed. Consequently, it's quite surprising how few beliefs are strictly "required" in Mormonism. Pretty much the only time we Mormons are "required" to profess our beliefs (as if professing a creed) is when we participate in baptismal and temple-recommend interviews. As an example, here are just a few of the "doctrines" that temple-going Mormons are not required to profess:
Now it just so happens that I believe in eternal progression, that the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham are generally historically accurate, and that polygamy, while perhaps imperfectly executed, was a commandment back in the day. But I also acknowledge that others can have different opinions on these and other issues while still being "good," temple-"worthy" Mormons. It's hard for me to understand why anyone would leave the church over issues that are not even central to our actual beliefs.
Seeing Religion like We See Science
Finally, I think people should view religion more like they view science. Of course I'm biased since I'm a scientist myself, but for me true religion and true science differ only in what constitutes "evidence." In science, evidence is limited to that which is observable, reproducible, and measurable. In religion, evidence can also come from supernatural/revelatory sources.
So how does science work? Is it a single inexorable march to greater and greater truth? Certainly not. Scientists are constantly making mistakes. Fortunately, science (ideally) is a self-correcting system. For every two steps forward, there's only one step back (on a good day). Over the years, by identifying and correcting mistaken ideas, by trying to fit more and more pieces of scientific evidence into our models of the universe, we slowly approach the "Truth."
Religion should be seen in the same light. It, too, is a self-correcting process whereby humans try their best to assemble and process evidence. Humans are flawed, so their analyses will at times be flawed. That doesn't mean there isn't overall progress towards Truth, nor does it mean that much of what we've already discovered isn't true. The progress of both science and religion is more like a ship than a train. The path isn't fixed. We may deviate slightly from the right course occasionally, but we're generally headed in the right direction.
I hope this answer helps! Best of luck to you and your brother. I'll pray for you both.