2 - Is it ok to question?

 

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them. - Galileo

 

            For many people covering the question of whether it is ok to question my seem strange. Of course you can question. Asking why wouldn't you question things may even seem to be a better question. However, for the faithful Mormon, if they are asked to read something that may be damaging to their faith, it has been my experience that they usually refuse. They have been encouraged to not look at anything that is not "faith promoting." So as a simple question most people would probably say of course, but for believers of a faith, are you really willing or able to question your own beliefs? Do you say you can, but build protective rules for you faith? Are you just so certain you have the right religion or belief system that it's beyond question? Is there a limit to what you will read? If you can't answer that you are completely open to testing your faith not through magical means such as prayer, but through an examination of any evidence that is contrary to your faith, what does that say about any claims of having the truth?

            For a Mormon this can be made even harder because they have been taught how to interpret their feelings in a way that leads them to avoid any literature that questions the validity of their faith. This has been done by learning that a positive feeling is a confirmation from the spirit something is true, and a negative feeling is the spirit telling you to beware. When this is applied to a person's belief system, it is natural to have positive feelings about things that support what we already believe. This happens in part from what is called confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is a tendency for people to favor information that confirms their beliefs. People display this bias when they gather information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. For a believer, when they read something that confirms the belief they hold they may get a feeling of happiness, which for a Mormon is the spirit telling them it's true. However, when presented with something that goes against their beliefs the person may get a sad or scared feeling, which for a Mormon is the spirit telling them it's false or even from the Devil. Once this happens they have certain words they use to label the literature and feeling making it easy to recognize it through their Mormon filter, and also to share how it should be viewed with other members. For example, the negative literature will have the "anti", "anti-Mormon", "the devil trying to deceive", or "lead astray" label placed on it, and the feeling with be label as "evil" or "the spirit withdrew." They can even describe the feeling they felt such as "It made my heart sad" and just in describing the feeling they know it's the spirit guiding them.

            The answer to the whether it's ok to question probably depends on who you ask. There are many questions about questioning ones faith that should be considered. Is it ok to question my faith? Am I an evil person if I question? How can I most affectively question my beliefs?  Who is providing the information I'm reading? Do they have an agenda? Can I consider the information with awareness of their agenda and still find truth in it? Can an answer that is a lie make me doubt my faith? Will the truth surface in the end? As with most things in the church, while there are plenty of quotes to say how we should never question that I will get into later. I would like to start by listing the ones that say it is ok, and that it is even needed that we question our faith.

 

"If faith will not bear to be investigated; if its preachers and professors are afraid to have it examined, their foundation must be very weak." 

            - Journal of Discourses 14:217 George Albert Smith, August 13, 1871

 

"It is always a difficult task to hold the scales of justice at even balance when weighing the deeds of men. It becomes doubly more so when dealing with men engaged in a movement that one believes had its origin with God. Under such conditions to so state events as to be historically exact, and yet, on the other hand, so treat the course of events as not to destroy faith in these men, nor in their work, becomes a task of supreme delicacy; and one that tries the soul and skill of the historian. The only way such a task can be accomplished in the judgment of the writer, is to frankly state events as they occurred, in full consideration of all related circumstances, allowing the line of condemnation or of justification to fall where it may; being confident that in the sum of things justice will follow truth; and God will be glorified in his work, no matter what may befall individuals or groups of individuals."

            - B.H. Roberts, A comprehensive History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Century I

 

Associated Press: Some scholars say historical records point to discrepancies with the official church history. How do you reconcile the differences? And what is the church's position on historical scholarship?

President Hinckley: Well, we have nothing to hide. Our history is an open book. They may find what they are looking for, but the fact is the history of the church is clear and open and leads to faith and strength and virtues.

            - Deseret News - by Jennifer Dobner (published dec 25, 2005)

 

"President Taylor then resumed, the stand. Some people will say "Oh, don't talk about it." I think a full, free talk is frequently of great use; we want nothing secret nor underhanded, and for one I want no association with things that cannot be talked about and will not bear investigation."

            - Journal of Discourses Volume 20, page 264 - John Taylor

 

"Take up the Bible, compare the religion of the Latter-day Saints with it, and see if it will stand the test."

            - Journal of Discourses Volume 16, page 46 - Brigham Young

 

". . .the laws should not interfere with the exercise of their religious rights. If we cannot convince you by reason nor by the word of God, that your religion is wrong, we will not persecute you, but will sustain you in the privileges guaranteed in the great Charter of American Liberty: we ask from you the same generosity,—protect us in the exercise of our religious rights—convince us of our errors of doctrine, if we have any, by reason, by logical arguments, or by the word of God, and we will be ever grateful for the information, and you will ever have the pleasing reflection that you have been the instruments in hands of god of redeeming your fellow beings from the darkness which you may see enveloping their minds. Come, then, let us reason together, and try to discover the true light upon all subjects connected with our temporal or eternal happiness; and if we disagree in our judgments, let us impute it to the weakness and imperfections of our fallen natures, and let us pity each other, and endeavor with patience and meekness to reclaim from error, and save the immortal soul from an endless death."

            - The Seer Vol 1, Celestial Marriage - Orson Pratt 1853

 

"If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed"

            - J. Reuben Clark, D. Michael Quinn, J. Reuben Clark: The Church Years. Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 1983, p. 24.

 

            I have heard it argued that the Journal of Discourses and History of the Church volumes are no longer considered approved church materials because they are out of circulation. This idea has two problems. First, both were once considered church approved materials. Why did they, or would they, change their minds? Is there something they once said they no longer want read? Is God not the same yesterday and today? Second, a simple word search on lds.org shows that in current conference talks, ensign articles, and other official church resources, the church itself is still using the Journal of Discourses and History of the Church volumes for reference thousands of times. So is it ok for them to go back and pull only the parts they like, but ask for the rest to be forgotten?

 

            For me I have decided not only am I open to reading past church manuals, but I'm open to reading any verifiable testimony that came from the leaders of our church that establishes their clear opinion on an issue. When speaking on matters of great importance, I would hesitate to think that they were only speaking in jest or speculation. Especially given the circumstances in which many of the quotes are derived. Take the Journal of Discourses quote on John Taylor in which he said he wants no part in anything that can't bear investigation or that can't be talked about. In this instance, not only did the church see fit to publish his opinion in the Journal of Discourses, but he was speaking in a hearing of people in regards to some very serious issues. Why would anyone think anything he said would not be said as his sincere opinion. Am I taking it out of context because he wasn't talking about the church? I think not. While he may not have been speaking directly about the church in this quote, he was speaking on a matter of principle. He clearly stated that for him it was not ok to be a part of anything that could not be investigated. 

            Other quotes listed above are clearly about the church, and again I would submit that they are reasonable situations where the person was clearly stating how they felt on the matter of challenging any issue or even the church.

            With this in mind, I have come to the conclusion that not only is it ok to question, but in many instances we can see the church's leaders have said it is imperative that we question. In the beginning of my research on church matters I made strange rules to try to protect my faith. I was curious to know the truth, but afraid of the affects it might have at the same time. I thought about how currently we are often told to only use church approved materials. How we should avoid anything that is "anti-Mormon." The church had to be true, so any research I did, I wanted to be very careful that it came from church approved sources. Slowly I came to realize that by doing this I wasn't protecting my faith at all. I was proving that my faith was hollow. I was not being honest with myself. The only thing obeying rules like this did was keep me from being objective and honest in my research. Setting up barriers guarantees only that you will not be making a decision with all of the information available, so you can't know if the answer you have come to is even based in truth. It limits you from being honest with yourself about your decision to believe. My new belief is that faith is believing in things that are unseen, but are true. Faith is not ignoring things that are known that are also true. Faith does not require ignorance.

            Here are a few more quotes I like that help to put into words how I now feel about using my mind openly and freely without barriers for questions.

           

"I admire men and women who have developed the questing spirit, who are unafraid of the new ideas as stepping stones to progress. We should, of course, respect the opinions of others, but we should also be unafraid to dissent - if we are informed. Thoughts and expressions compete in the marketplace of thought, and in that competition truth emerges triumphant. Only error fears freedom of expression . . .This free exchange of ideas is not to be deplored as long as men and women remain humble and teachable. Neither fear of the consequence or any kind of coercion should ever be used to secure uniformity of thought in the church. People should express their problems and opinions and be unafraid to think without fear of ill consequences. . . . We must preserve freedom of the mind in the church and resist all efforts to suppress it."

            - Hugh B. Brown - Counselor in the LDS presidency during the 1960s

 

"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. Do not believe anything because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything because it is written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and the benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."

            - The Buddha, Kalama Sutta - Anguttara Nikaya Vol. 1, 188-193 PTS Ed.

 

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same god who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."

            - Galileo Galilei

 

"Man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without a rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such persons, gullibility, which they call faith, takes the helm of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck."

            - Thomas Jefferson to James Smith, 1822. ME 15:409

 

"Shake off all the fears and servile prejudices under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."

            - Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1787. ME 6:258 Papers 12:15

 

"I was bold in the pursuit of knowledge, never fearing to follow truth and reason to whatever results they led, and bearding every authority which stood in their way."

            - Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, 1814. ME 14:85

 

"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good"

            1 Thessalonians 5:21

 

"Yes, say, what is truth? 'Tis the brightest prize

To which mortals or Gods can aspire;

Go search in the depths where it glittering lies

Or ascend in pursuit to the loftiest skies.

'Tis an aim for the noblest desire."

            - John Jacques (LDS convert in 1845)

 

            Based on what has been said, let's see how many of the questions we started with can be answered. Is it ok to question my faith? Based on the quotes of various prominent leaders within the LDS church, the bible, Galileo, Thomas Jeffereson, and other thoughtful minds, Absolutely. 

            Am I an evil person if I question? This one seems like it should be easy to answer, but if you are a believing Mormon who has never questioned you may not be aware of the normal reaction from a faithful member to a person who has difficult questions or brings up challenging information. Typically the question may go something like this. "Brother so and so, I was looking through the Journal of discourses and I found the following quote by President Brigham Young that I'm not sure how to deal with." "Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so." (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Volume 10, page 110.) The answer is likely to go something like this. "Well Brother yada yada, everyone knows the blacks were given the priesthood in 1978.  The church isn't racist. It sounds like you are looking at some evil or anti-Mormon sources. I would suggest sticking to approved church material." The problem is now the person who is asking for help, is being dismissed as looking at or doing something bad, instead of addressing the honest question based on a true statement by a Prophet of the church which was printed in a book that was published by the LDS church. How is that ok? It's not, but dismissive responses like these are normal. Is the person reading the Journal of Discourses, and asking questions evil? Not according to the previous quotes by Pres. Gordon B. Hinckley or Pres. John Taylor.

            How can I most affectively question my beliefs? The normal Mormon answer is, carefully, only stick to church approved materials, and pray. The problem with this is that you biasing your research. The only answer you can come to if you stick only to church approved resources is that all of those resources say the same thing. It's all true, and has never had any problems because we can never be led astray. In so many other things in life we seek a second opinion. Do we buy cars and homes or take jobs without consider all available information? Or do we just listen to the salesman's confident claims that this is the one for us? Few things in life are as important as the faith we choose to be a part of. Yet for this choice we refuse to seek a second opinion. As George Albert Smith has stated, "If faith will not bear to be investigated; if its preachers and professors are afraid to have it examined, their foundation must be very weak."  (JD 14:217) The second part of that suggestion was that we should pray. Prayer is great, but it assumes that only we as members of the LDS church are getting answers to prayer that say what we know is true. It ignores statements by the rest of the world that affirm their faiths based on answers to prayer. Additionally, if you are praying for confirmation for what you have read without knowing the information you are reading may be bad information, and you get a confirmation of its truthfulness, what does that say about prayer as reliable source for answers? With or without prayer, the best way to affectively question your faith is by seeking all truths relative to any subject. This means reading both the churches sources, and other sources. This means gathering all available information before you pray and make a judgment on what is true.

            What about questioning who is providing the information I'm reading. Do they have an agenda? Can I still use information I find in biased resources? It is true that there is bias in a lot of sources, both from the LDS church and not from the church. Paying attention to who is providing the information is important. What helps when sifting through information is not to dismiss people based on who is asking, but instead to ask yourself, "What is this persons goal in presenting this information." By asking this you can become aware of biases. This does not mean sources with an agenda cannot be used. It means that you should take into consideration any bias that may be present and do your best to take only valid information from the source. If a Evangelical website spends several paragraphs talking about how Mormonism is a plague, this probably isn't very useful information. If on that same site they have listed PEW survey results on actual membership surveys conducted on LDS members, that can be extremely useful information. Whether it's the LDS church, who is obviously biased in their information, or a book or website that the typical member might label as anti-Mormon for whatever reason, finding the truth is still the goal. What you will likely find is that there is plenty of fair and honest research presented in a clear manor available. You will also find that there are books and websites from both sides of the discussion that simply have too much bias interwoven into their answers to be considered reliable, and you will likely learn to avoid such sources. There are some apologetic resources that are just two dismissive of evidence and use terrible arguments to achieve the one goal of proving the church is true. There are also some critical resources where you can tell they aren't being objective. Such as judging a religious practice of the LDS church based on a differing religious argument that is equally questionable without applying the same test to their own beliefs. Once people are able to get past any personal artificial barriers they have erected that limit the resources they will look at, I believe once we recognize our own biases and try to overcome them, people are smarter than they are often given credit for, and will do a good job of sifting through available resources.

            Can an answer that is a lie make me doubt my faith? Yes. If you aren't careful to verify that what you are reading is true, and you take everything anyone says at face value, a lie can and will absolutely affect your view of your faith. For myself, I was so guarded about my faith that it would have been hard to make a statement I wouldn't stop to verify it's truthfulness. There was no way I would have dismissed my beliefs based on taking some differing opinions at face value.  My faith was too important to me to give it up that easily. With how hard it is to even get most members to talk about a difficult subject because of their fears about how it might affect their beliefs, I doubt many members of the church would allow themselves to read anything that calls their faith into question without being meticulous about determining the authenticity of the claim. Members are more likely to take statements that come from the LDS church at face value, and without question. I would even say this is the norm. Members rarely question their leaders, but as you continue to read this, you will find that there have been many instances in which the members should have done just that.

            Will the truth surface in the end?  I think the question is best handled in two ways, micro and macro. On a micro scale, or on a single resource towards a single issue, there can be little doubt that mistakes are made. There is a large community of both apologist and skeptics working diligently to answer and verify all sources. When mistakes are found they are corrected. It does no good to provide any false information when there is so much valid information available from the LDS church's own resources to consider. Be aware that each side may attempt to take the factual information and place their interpretation and meaning to it. It's not that there's a set answer out there for all things. Instead there's a conversation that is going on relative to difficult subjects with regards to the LDS church. As in all continuous conversations, new evidence may be found, and some evidence may be dismissed. But the argument continues. On a macro level, you have to look at the overall information available, the overall tone of the conversation as a whole, and the overall efforts of the critics and the LDS church. In the end, thanks to the internet, and the work of so many people who continue to research the problems of the church, I believe on the macro level the truth is always surfacing more and more.

 

DON'T LOOK!

 

            What about the idea that church members are told not to look at information that isn't from church approved material? I feel in fairness to the question "is it ok to look", that I need to point out how the church has in fact warned against performing any research that I've just shown they have at times supported. In the end it will be for you to decide if you should or should not consider evidence beyond that the church is currently presenting.

            After covering why we should ask questions and look at all available information that is true, does it leave you to wonder, why is there such a huge stigma in the church about reading anything that is not an official source currently provided by the church? Why is it when someone is asked about any of the troubling issues with the church, no one ever seems to have an answer, but everyone will tell you to change your focus to only the current manuals and scriptures? Is someone trying to control the information? If so, why?

            The first doubt I ever had involved understanding God's knowledge of our existence.  When I was fifteen I wrote this question down and presented it to my bishop. Before you read this question let me put a few things into context. Mormons believe there was a spiritual preexistence before we come to this world. In the preexistence we live with God. Our coming to earth is for a test and for our spirits to gain a body of flesh and bone so we can become like God. Mormons believe God has a body of flesh and bone as we do. When we die we will become resurrected like Jesus, our spirit will rejoin with our flesh, become perfected, and we will live with God once again.

            The question went something like this.          

           

            Can God really know everything? We teach that he's perfect and all knowing, but can this be the case? What is troubling to me is that if he is perfect and all knowing then he can't lie, but he knows if we're going to heaven or hell before we even come to this world, there becomes an honesty problems with anything less than a God who is not all knowing. The problem isn't if he knows. The problem starts when you recognize that if he knows the outcome before you come here, but he has told you that you have freedom to act, and based on your actions you have a chance to come back to heaven, he knows if you're going to make it before you even go. It can be said that you still have to perform the actions. It can also be said that his time is different than ours. But neither of these dismiss God from making a definitive statement to us at a set point in time as we understand it prior to our accomplishing the task in which the outcome is already known. (Understand this question is based on the Mormon understanding of a pre-existence, however it can be slightly changed an applied to other faiths the same.) Even if he his time is different than ours, it doesn't dismiss his understanding or his knowing the outcome, or his understanding that he's making a definitive statement at a set point in time. Prior to you living your life he's telling you it's possible to earn your way into heaven. Regardless of how his time is counted, he would know at the point in time when he makes the "you can do it" statement if he's lieing or not. If God is a liar, he's a jerk. If a kid asked his parent to have a cookie in a jar that is out of reach, and the parent says you can have one if you can get it yourself, knowing the child can't get the cookie, the parent isn't being very nice. It's not right to look at the same situation with God and just excuse it because it's God.
 

 

            The conclusion I came to was that God is not a jerk. So while he may know a lot more than we do, he can't know everything. While I was able to move past the question by coming to my own semi-logical conclusion, the bishop could not or would not answer me. I asked the same thing to a different bishop of a different ward later. Still no answer. I asked the same thing to a Sunday school teacher. No answer. I asked the same thing to friends in the church. No Answer.  No one ever gave me an answer. I heard a lot of "there are things we aren't meant to know,"  or "we can't apply our understanding of things to God." Generally these were just attempts from people to excuse the question without trying to answer it.
 

            The second doubt I had about the doctrines we learn in the church was in regards to the flood. The LDS church teaches that the flood was a literal occurrence, not a metaphor. After college when I started to rediscover my love for reading, at some point, I can't remember exactly how but I found myself reading about some scientific explanations for how the flood did not and could not have happened. These explanations went into everything from atmospheric pressures, the speed of the water travel, the collecting of the animals, the capacity of the ark, the food requirements and other needs of the animals such as waste disposal, and the method for the animals getting back to their current locations after the flood.
 

            Again, as a good Mormon does, I went straight to my leadership. The results started to be the same. . .no answers. The first Bishop I asked said in private he didn't know, and then a few weeks later in Sunday school he taught, "I don't know why some people have a hard time accepting the flood, but the church said it literally happened so it did." I then put it on the shelf as yet another thing that we just weren't meant to understand, but personally I decided it must have been a metaphor regardless of what the church teaches. It later resurfaced with a counselor as a doubt during a temple recommend interview. He had no answers. 

            The same thing happened when I started to wonder about the new things people were learning from DNA that are showing that no Jewish, or even Middle-eastern people have ever been a part of the ancestry of the Indians of North or South America. With this I asked a relative, and he emailed me a link to an apologetic website and their explanation of DNA and the Book of Mormon. For this relative, his response indicated that "these guys seem to know what they are talking about." For me this implied that this answer was good enough for him, and the issue was settled. I don't know that for sure, and have not followed up with him on the subject. For me, the answers given made absolutely no sense compared to what I had already learned about DNA and how it is used to determine paternity and ancestry. So I put it on the shelf of God will answer it later.

            No matter what doubts I ever had, no one ever seemed to have an answer. The leadership in the LDS church always seems to be so completely unprepared to answer even these basic religious doubts. We believe in the idea that the spirit provides answers, these mean are called by the power of the priesthood, and preside with the guidance of the Lord. This is suppose to compensate for the fact that typically they are untrained volunteers, with limitations to their own knowledge of the gospel and doctrines of their own religion. However, it never seemed to work when I needed help with troubling questions.

            Beyond approaching our leadership or teachers, we are told to stick to approved or official church materials to seek answers. The problem is that the end answer to many of the difficult questions from the manuals is to act as if there is no problem, ignore the issues, and tell people to just have faith. Let me state again, faith is believing in things that are unseen but true, but it does not require us to ignore known facts. So basically, while the approved church materials provide repetition to answers to many questions no one is asking, they provide almost no answers to any questions that can cast doubt on ones faith.

            No one, and no official source ever seems to have any answers to the tough questions, and we haven't even really touched on many of the more troubling issues yet. Even when looking at the apologetic site, as I was directed to by the well intentioned relative, a side effect was that I caught a small glimpse at other questions people were asking. Questions that I didn't even know existed. At this point I didn't proceed to look at those questions. That happened later.

            So where do you look? Careful. There's a huge stigma about looking at anything that isn't in the scriptures or in a current manual. Where does this attitude come from?

            While not explicitly limiting the members to only church sites, the idea that we should avoid anything that is not official or approved by the church probably gets its roots from many sources. One such source is the Church's Handbook 2: Administering to the Church, under Curriculum Materials (21.1.13), where it states to that "Leaders ensure that teachers use Church-approved materials for quorum and class instruction." As a person who taught for many years in the church, whether called to a presidency or as a teacher, I was frequently reminded of this policy. We were to stick only to the approved materials for teaching any classes.  Many members learn this through various callings that involve teaching, and it's likely that most members have been told the rule, even if it didn't really apply to them.

            This concept of only sticking to approved correlated materials is encouraged in articles like the following article from LDSchurchnews.com entitled - Use Proper Sources (Jan, 9, 2010).

 

"". . . Why," she asked, "are you trying to boil down information? An inspired Church-      writing committee has already done that for you." The committee's work, the daughter continued, has been approved by the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency. . . . " "Everything you need — and more — is in your manual . . ." "We are to seek personal revelation from the Lord and study Church materials and instructions. We can counsel with our presidencies or committees and seek advice from priesthood leaders as we strive to meet the needs of those we serve. The scriptures are an invaluable resource. But we may be tempted to do more, to turn to unofficial lesson plans, resources and information found in books and on the Internet. . . . " "But leaders and teachers in the Church do themselves and the people they serve a disservice when they turn to unofficial — not correlated— materials in the planning of lessons and activities. Correlation is an inspired effort overseen by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve . . . " "Since the early 1960s, Church members have seen the results of more than four decades of correlation efforts, established to: Maintain purity of doctrine." "Today, the correlation process helps ensure that materials published in the name of the Church — carrying the Church logo — are scripture-based, doctrinally accurate and          appropriate for the intended audience. All Church publications are planned, prepared, reviewed and implemented under the direction of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve." "The Church — through its inspired correlation program — has given us official sources of information to help us prepare lessons and plan activities. Instead of turning to unofficial books and Web sites, let's use those sources."

 

            Elder Dallin H. Oaks is also referenced a few times in this same article with the following quotes: "A gospel teacher is not called to choose the subject of the lesson but to teach and discuss what has been specified. Gospel teachers should also be scrupulous to avoid hobby topics, personal speculations, and controversial subjects. The Lord's revelations and the directions of His servants are clear on this point." Elder Oaks goes on to say "No matter how brilliant he may be and how many new truths he may think he has found, he has no right to go beyond the program of the Church"

            - Elder Dallin H. Oaks, "Gospel Teaching," Ensign, November 1999, 78

 

            Beyond telling the members to stick only to official correlated materials for preparing lessons other warnings have been given. Such is the case with what is often labeled as lying for the Lord. A message from Boyd K Packer to church historians such as the following make the point.

      

"Church history can be so interesting and so inspiring as to be a powerful tool indeed for building faith. If not properly written or properly taught, it may be a faith destroyer… There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not. Some things that are true are not very useful… The writer or teacher who has an exaggerated loyalty to the theory that everything must be told is laying a foundation for his own judgment...The Lord made it clear that some things are to be taught selectively and some things are to be given only to those who are worthy… That historian or scholar who delights in pointing out the weaknesses and frailties of present or past leaders destroys faith. A destroyer of faith - particularly one within the Church, and more particularly one who is employed specifically to build faith - places himself in great spiritual jeopardy. He is serving the wrong master, and unless he repents, he will not be among the faithful in the eternities…Do not spread disease germs!"

            - Boyd K. Packer, 1981, BYU Studies, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 259-271

 

            This concept is further pushed by the Apostles with comments like the following where Elder Oaks he states he will sacrifice everything to maintain the integrity of the church. If there is anything that reveals negative information such as something that might tarnish the reputation of the founding prophet Joseph Smith, they will do anything to limit its influence, and it's authors.

 

"My duty as a member of the Council of the Twelve is to protect what is most unique about the LDS church, namely the authority of priesthood, testimony regarding the restoration of the gospel, and the divine mission of the Savior. Everything may be sacrificed in order to maintain the integrity of those essential facts. Thus, if Mormon Enigma reveals information that is detrimental to the reputation of Joseph Smith, then it is necessary to try to limit its influence and that of its authors."

            - Dallin H. Oaks - Inside the Mind of Joseph Smith: Psychobiography and the Book of        Mormon, Introduction p. xliii f28

 

            When I first stumbled onto this next one I was simply blown away. In this next quote Elder Nelson he not only warns about digging up negative "facts", but he actually says that the companion of truth is silence. If something is a fact, then it is truth. How can leaving facts silent be the truths best companion?

 

"Indeed, in some instances, the merciful companion to truth is silence. Some truths are best left unsaid." "Any who are tempted to rake through the annals of history, to use truth unrighteously, or to dig up “facts” with the intent to defame or destroy, should hearken to this warning of scripture: “The righteousness of God [is] revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness.” (Rom. 1:17-18.) "I repeat: 'The wrath of God is … against all … who hold the truth in unrighteousness.'" To anyone who, because of truth, may be tempted to become a dissenter against the Lord and his anointed, weigh carefully your action..."

            - Russell M. Nelson, “Truth—and More,” Ensign, Jan. 1986, page 69

 

            In the next quote Elder Oaks makes it clear that there is a difference between criticizing a person in a corporate or government setting, and a person who is a church leader. It's ok to criticize leaders of government or business, but the leaders of the church are called of God. Oaks states that even if the criticism is true it shouldn't be made. This is acceptable to people who believe the church has never been wrong about any issue of consequence. For most believing Mormons they have been taught that they will never be lead astray. They have every confidence in their leaders. For them it will be easy to accept the idea that it's wrong to criticize them, and might even take offense to hearing it. But what if you're wrong?

 

"It is one thing to depreciate a person who exercises corporate power or even government power. It is quite another thing to criticize or depreciate a person for the performance of an office to which he or she has been called of God. It does not matter that the criticism is true." " As Elder George F. Richards, President of the Council of the Twelve, said in a conference address in April 1947, 'when we say anything bad about the leaders of the Church, whether true or false, we tend to impair their influence and their usefulness and are thus working against the Lord and his cause.' ... The Holy Ghost will not guide or confirm criticism of the Lord's anointed, or of Church leaders, local or general. This reality should be part of the spiritual evaluation that LDS readers and viewers apply to those things written about our history and those who made it."

            - Dallin H. Oaks, "Reading Church History," CES Doctrine and Covenants Symposium, Brigham Young University, 16 Aug. 1985, page 25. also see Dallin H. Oaks, "Elder Decries Criticism of LDS Leaders," quoted in The Salt Lake Tribune, Sunday August 18, 1985, p. 2B

 

            Apostle Oaks published a similar talk for the February 1987 Ensign Magazine. Again, Apostle Oaks declared that there is no place in the church for public criticism of church leaders, even if the criticism is true. He also said:

 

"Truth surely exists as an absolute, but our use of truth should be disciplined by other values. ... When truth is constrained by other virtues, the outcome is not falsehood but silence for a season. As the scriptures say, there is “a time to keep silence, and a time to speak.” "Does the commandment to avoid faultfinding and evil speaking apply to Church members’ destructive personal criticism of Church leaders? Of course it does. It applies to criticism of all Church leaders—local or general, male or female. In our relations with all of our Church leaders, we should follow the Apostle Paul’s direction: “Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father.” (1 Tim. 5:1.)" "Government or corporate officials, who are elected directly or indirectly or appointed by majority vote, must expect that their performance will be subject to critical and public evaluations by their constituents. That is part of the process of informing those who have the right and power of selection or removal. The same is true of popularly elected officers in professional, community, and other private organizations." "A different principle applies in our Church, where the selection of leaders is based on revelation, subject to the sustaining vote of the membership. In our system of Church government, evil speaking and criticism of leaders by members is always negative. Whether the criticism is true or not, as Elder George F. Richards explained, it tends to impair the leaders’ influence and usefulness, thus working against the Lord and his cause." "Public debate—the means of resolving differences in a democratic government—is not appropriate in our Church government. We are all subject to the authority of the called and sustained servants of the Lord. They and we are all governed by the direction of the Spirit of the Lord, and that Spirit only functions in an atmosphere of unity. That is why personal differences about Church doctrine or procedure need to be worked out privately."

            - Apostle Dallin H. Oaks, “Criticism,” Ensign, Feb. 1987, page 68

 

            The idea of separating out a church leader and criticizing them gets even muddier when you consider the following. Most members will tell you they rank things in life 1. God, 2. Family, 3. Church. Or at least in some order that ranks those three things on the top. Members sometimes grumble and complain about aspects of the church such as callings or cleaning the building. However, whether or not God answers a prayer in a positive or negative way, God is above question. The problem is that for Mormons there is no separation between God and the Church. The church was established by God himself, and the people leading it are is direct mouthpiece to the world. Even the local leaders are called by the power of God on earth through the priesthood. They can't be separated. This also works to limit members ability to question or criticize their leaders, because it's therefore about the same as trying to criticize God. This can be seen in the following quote by Elder Wirthlin.

 

"Some people exalt themselves above God and His anointed servants because of their learning and scholarly achievements. We must never allow our intellect to take priority over our spirit. Our intellect can feed our spirit and our spirit can feed our intellect, but if we allow our intellect to take precedence over our spirit, we stumble, find fault, and may even lose our testimonies."

            - Apostle Joseph B. Wirthlin. October 2004 General Conference.

 

            So while we can see that there have been comments in the past about being willing to look at the church and verifying the validity of its truth claims, there seems to have emerged a change in the tone with regards to this idea. It seems as though now they are saying that it is wrong to criticize and to even look for "facts" or "truths" regarding the church outside of any correlated materials provided by the church. Personally I see a loose correlation of this change in direction and the availability of information. It's easy to make bold statements challenging people to challenge your truth claims when little information that could counter your claims is available. However, as information has become more available and certainly since the internet, it's easier for people find such information. It makes sense that if the church has information they previously had tried to move past, that it would be easier for members to now discover it. So their tone with regards to researching such information has become defensive in nature.

            So what's a believer to do? There are statements from leaders saying to look, and statements saying not to look. Let me suggest the following. Don't put it on a shelf. Don't turn it off. If you have a want to know that something is true, search it out the same way you would for any other decision in life. Be able to firmly state that you know something is true and were not afraid to test you're claims of knowledge. Don't stand up and say you know it's true if you are too afraid to look at something that might show you it's not. This isn't knowledge, and you will be lying to more than just yourself. If there's something to be found that is true, but also harmful to something you hold true now, be willing to consider it. I cannot believe in a God who would provide us with a true church, true leaders, and true scriptures, and then be afraid of us questioning it. A God who would ask you not to use the intellect that he has created you with. Wouldn't God respect you for taking it seriously and trying your best to learn truth?

            All of this makes it appear as if the LDS church is trying to control information that their members look at. One could argue that this is perfectly acceptable by stating the case that all countries, business, and religions (which are also businesses) make efforts to control their image. It's only natural for an entity to work to be viewed only in positive ways so that people will buy from or take part in the services rendered by the entity. This is only partially fair to say. 

            If the defense for the church trying to exaggerate from time to time about their actions or what they do for people is that everyone exaggerates, two wrongs have never made a right. Even if every institution on the planet is overstating their position, it never makes dishonesty ok. Any person should be able to reasonably assume that any organization does this, but they should not limit their own research to only the positive messages they hear. They should be as skeptical with their religion as they are with any other organization. If the LDS church were any different, they wouldn't ever have to hire PR firms. Of course the LDS church doesn't just work with PR firms, they also own Bonneville Communications, which certainly works to paint only a positive image. These outlets are regularly used to promote the church's image in a positive way. This image control becomes even more apparent with the censorship of comments regarding religious articles about the church in Deseret News. This one is easy to verify. Just go on their webpage and start pointing out where the author has made mistakes in the articles, which are regularly told in the approved "some things that are true are not very useful" format. Perhaps make a comment that is critical of the prophet of an apostle. Make sure what you say is factual. You could also watch how the Deseret News and the Salt Lake Tribune regularly have different views on topics related to the church. They could both be wrong, but they can't both be right when they are in disagreement. If you suspect your church isn't being honest about something, would you call them on it? Or would you excuse it?

            The efforts of the church to control the information gets a lot worse with regards to the history of the church. As shown in the previous quotes, they have no problem telling their own church historians that there membership in the church may be threatened if they choose to tell the whole truth, rather than just the parts that make the church look good.

            At this point you may already be starting to experience cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is a discomfort experienced when a person tries to hold to two conflicting ideas at the same time. Many people who are experiencing it, don't always recognize it. In this case, for a person to accept the quotes of LDS leadership in the first part of the chapter that imply the church has nothing to hide, and that people should scrutinize the church to ensure everything is as it should be, while also acknowledging the leadership quotes the second half of the chapter that show that they are also trying to keep people from telling all truths, will put a person in a position of experiencing cognitive dissonance. People often attempt to compartmentalize these differing positions, or to diminish the differences through dishonest rationalizations. In the case I've just presented, before you allow yourself to apply such defenses, go back and read all of the quotes provided. I hope you will recognize they are in opposition, and a person can't say they completely endorse one side without at least partially dismissing the other.

            I've listened as one person attempted to rationalize accepting the "not all truths are useful" quote is ok because, as it was said, your pants may be green, but that information isn't useful. This is a straw man argument in that no critic is trying to argue for information of so little use. A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position, twisting his words or by means of false assumptions. Knowing if the church has gone counter to its claims that they will never lead its members astray is much more useful to members than the color of a pair of pants Joseph Smith was wearing. Knowing if you've been lied to is very useful information.

            The last question that really needs to be asked on this topic of not looking is why. Why is the church trying to get people to not look at certain verifiably accurate older texts? Why are they trying to hide parts of their past? If anything bad about the church is a lie, there would be no need to cover anything up. Lies do not stand up to rigorous research. Just ask the apologists who seem to have a problem with submitting their work for peer review.

            When asking why would they be trying to control the information, a person might try to apply the same question to other organizations. If you find it easy to look at other entities and see that they are trying to control information because some of the information is very bad, but you find it hard to acknowledge that your own churches efforts may also be to hide some very bad things, you may be using confirmation bias again. Remember, confirmation bias is a tendency for people to favor information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses regardless of whether the information is true.  If you acknowledge that some governments, such as the current government of North Korea, are doing a very good job at controlling information that is damaging to their reputation with their populous. While they are doing this to their citizens, in reality they are committing some terrible crimes against humanity, and their people are starving to death as a direct result of many of the government's policies. It's easier for you to have an open mind because this information poses no threat to your own beliefs. Now try to apply that same questioning and open mind to your own government, your own business, your own political party, and for the sake of the discussion most importantly your own religion. Is the church really so infallible in your mind that you can't acknowledge just from the previous quotes about not telling all truths alone, that you may in fact have been deceived on any issues? It's a hard thing to recognize when we are doing it, but I would suggest always looking for the ideas that limit your ability to openly look at all information and reject that idea. Always be searching for truth.

            If the church is true, and you just know you are right, and research and facts are easily dismissed as anti-Mormon lies. Feel free to stop reading. But know that by refusing to look you are also admitting that you are unwilling to compare all the evidences in your claim to know the truth. And you are not willing to research into issues that are affecting the testimonies of thousands of members. If you know you are right, there really is nothing to fear. If you're not sure, feel free to protect what is really a more fragile testimony than you may want to admit, and feel free to ignore the lost sheep and the issues that are confounding them.

            Additionally, know that if a person wants to say "I know the church is true" with confidence, but openly defends the church when it may be dishonest while unwilling to verify if it is honest, it is acknowledgement not only that the member doesn't really know, but that he doesn't care if he knows.

            If you feel that it is important to know why they are making such an effort to cover up parts of their past, I highly encourage you to keep reading. Soon enough I will start to discuss many of the issues with the church, both past and present, in which the church is not being honest with its membership. If you want to know for sure that the church is true, you want to measure all information, both good and bad, and/or you feel like you may be able to provide different answers that are faith promoting that could help so many people who are lost, please choose to continue.

            The English philosopher John Stuart said any attempt to resist another opinion is a "peculiar evil." If the opinion is right, we are robbed of the "opportunity of exchanging error for truth." If it is wrong, we are deprived  of the deeper understanding of the truth in "its collision with error." If anything I present is false, your knowledge of what is true will be strengthened. If anything I present is true, you will have the opportunity to recognize the new truth, and replace the previously held error. You are not doing either you, me, or anyone else a service by refusing to read further.

            I would like to quote Grant H. Palmer, from the preface of An Insider's view of Mormon Origins (pgs viii, ix - 2002). In it he states:

            "Some of this research has been conducted by critics of the church. Some of it contains distortions and is unreliable. But much of what even the critics have written is backed by solid investigation and sounds reasoning and should not be dismissed. Your friends don't always tell you what you need to hear. Furthermore, it is untrue that non-Mormons who write about the church are de facto anti-Mormon. Many outside historians are good friends and supporters of the church, and many find the topics interesting for their own sake without any agenda. . . .

            Over the years, scholars of all strives have made contributions and counterbalanced each other by critiquing each other's works. We now have a body of authentic, reliable documents and near consensus on many of the details. From this base, the overall picture of Mormon origins begins to unfold. This picture is much different from what we hear in the modified versions that are taught in Sunday school. But demythologized - placed in its original time and place, amid all the twists and turns that exist in the real world - it rings true. There has not been an attempt to eliminate the spiritual from the secular. Far from that, the foundational stories are in many cases more spiritual, less temporal, and more stirring. Whatever else, they are also fascinating. To know the personalities involved in these events and to hear them tell their experiences in their own original words before everything was recast for hierarchical and proselyting purposes is to see it all in an entirely new and exciting perspective."

                        I would like to echo Palmer's remarks with regard to the fascination that comes from learning all of the history of the church. I have lost my faith, but I've also never been more interested in the history of the church and learning about the rest of the world and how it works. For myself, and many people I've talked to like me, the story has become so much more interesting, and there is a real thrill in discovering the truth. Many of the topics I will attempt to cover will be covered in limited summary detail. Many of these issues individually have had numeral historical books written on them. My attempt in writing this is not to present all of the information on every subject available, but to take you on a journey with me of much of the information being debated, as I write this to organize my thoughts in regards to what I have learned.

        

Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts: and in the hidden part thou shalt make me to know wisdom. 

            - Psalms 51:6

 

There are only two mistakes one can make along the road to truth; not going all the way, and not starting.

            - Buddha

"I think it is Montaigne who has said, that ignorance is the softest pillow on which a man can rest his head."

            - Thomas Jefferson to Edmund Randolph, 1794. ME 9:280