This past weekend I was, for the umpteenth time, reading the writings of a certain LDS apostate held in high regard by many who make criticism of the Church their avocation. I don’t want to name this apostate; indeed, his name is not important. Instead, I want to review my thoughts on one particular aspect of his writings. It is these thoughts that others may find of value. (Or not; I hold no illusions that my writings are of any intrinsic value, other than when they provide a springboard for introspection within others.)
Of particular interest to me was a letter this apostate wrote to a general authority and subsequently self-published in 2003, after he had left the Church. In the rather long letter, I was able to pull out 27 different assertions that were made documenting what this apostate saw as “wrong” with the LDS Church.
The assertions ran the gamut, from allegations that leaders teach obedience to Church authority as a paramount virtue to the idea that the Church requires educated members to “believe nonsense in a fashion similar to Catholics of Galileo’s day.” Indeed, the document is rife with unsupported assertions that the Church suppresses its history and insists that members “not question or look” at anything that may not toe the Church line. There are even charges that Church teachings are “dysfunctional” because they lead to marital disharmony and family tension.
What is the solution in the eyes of this particular apostate? That the Church become more inclusive of disparate views relative to the foundational stories of the Church and not “trumpet the ‘hard questions’ and answers.” Instead, the Church should somehow help members to a more “metaphoric, inclusive view of religion and humanity.” In other words, the Church should be changed to not only recognize but embrace what many LDS would consider the heretical views of this particular apostate.
The 27 criticisms recounted in the letter are nothing new; they have been around since shortly after the founding of the Church. The only thing different in this instance is the flowery language and faux-helpful manner in which the criticisms are made. I don’t really want to spend time addressing them, as anyone can find answers to the criticisms at the FAIR website and in a number of other places on the Internet.
One of the striking features of the letter, however, is this person’s downright tragic recounting of the tremendous toll that his apostasy exacted on his family relationships. Written, as it was, only a few months after his decision to leave the Church, the pain in the wording is evident.
Equally striking was the fact that this person laid the responsibility of that heavy toll at the feet of the organizational Church and the apostle to whom he was writing. The attempt to shift responsibility for the consequences of one’s choices to an external source is almost as tragic as the apostasy of the individual. And, unfortunately, it is also a manifestation of an unhealthy pride that refuses to allow the sufferer to accept that he is the ultimate source of his own pain. (The letter was also notable in the number of self-aggrandizing statements that it incorporated; I was able to cull 16 of them.)
Despite what is stated in Proverbs 16:18 (“Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.”), many times those who possess unhealthy pride get on just fine in life. There is no earth-bound timetable attached to the promised destruction. Such people may even lead successful lives, by the world’s standards, but it will seldom be within the self-perceived confines of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Indeed, if one sees individual apostasy as a “fall,” then a haughty spirit often does come before an exit from the Church.
There are times, as well, when pride doesn’t just blind the possessor, but also those with whom the possessor associates. The writings of this particular apostate have been extolled by some for their erudition and logic, but those who do the extolling, almost without exception, continuously seek any club with which to bludgeon the faithful and fault the Saints. The writings of any apostate will do in such a cause, and an apostate who is better-than-average in his writing is an even better tool.
Spend some time removing the emotional baggage and self-aggrandizing verbiage that often attend his writing, and you end up with a series of tired criticisms that amount to nothing more than old wine in new bottles. Not to mix too many metaphors, but this wine is too-often clothed in a philosophy that seeks to substitute the pabulum of secularism for the feast of Christ.
This particular apostate is not alone in his blinding pride. One senses it in the reactions to missives by a few arrogant, condescending atheists who, by their own admission, hold nothing but contempt for those who choose to believe in the divine. Not only is one well-known atheist destructively proud, but so are those who trumpet his condescension and contempt as the pinnacle of scholarly thought.
Please don’t get me wrong; I am not painting all atheists or apostates with a broad brush. There are a few who are prideful, and even more who vicariously glory in that pride. Such demeaning pride is a human characteristic, not a singular possession of atheists—or even of the particular apostate whose writings led to this essay.
Those who are destructively prideful cannot shed themselves of pride until they come to recognize that they possess the attribute. The deadly sin cannot be pointed out to them by others; their pride will only compel them to deny that they possess the attribute or that any fault lies with them. (The words to Carly Simon’s 1972 song, “You’re So Vain,” come to mind in this regard.) In fact, as is done in the apostate’s letter, it may lead them to find a convenient organizational scapegoat for the consequences of their own actions.
Unfortunately, pride is often the intimate companion of those who move from the realm of faith to the world of secularism. When someone removes God from the equation of their life, they no longer view themselves in humble terms (as “the dust of the earth”) but as the master of all they survey. When such a person ceases to recognize a supreme being of any sort, they subconsciously supplant that supremacy with themselves. Paul warned against such persons; when they place themselves on the pinnacle of their existence, they end up “ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth” (2 Timothy 3:7).
For anyone who possesses destructive pride, it is impossible to ultimately lead a Christ-centered life. Why? Because we need to master the vices which posses us and rid them from our character. In short, we need to become more like the Master who bids us come and be a joint-heir with Him. Only in that path is salvation.
Edwin says
I have had in my life many discussions with anti-LDS and anti-any religion atheists. By far the more fanatic and vocal of the two has been the atheists. Pride does seem to have a lot to do with this, and we all must beware that deadly sin. Thanks for the interesting article Allen.
We’ve documented in the past “shaken-faith” syndrome, maybe you’ve just given us our new diagnosis for this disease; “inflated ego” syndrome.
Patrick says
The irony of FAIR blasting anyone else for pride is fantastically rich.
Allen Wyatt says
No blasting intended, Patrick. It was just an essay on observations.
Destructive pride affects all sorts of people, no doubt even some within FAIR. But I have seen no evidence that it affects the organization as a whole.
-Allen
Patrick says
No blasting intended? C’mon, Allen. Who do you think you’re kidding? It would be a welcome change if FAIR were up front about it’s general attitude and tone, instead of hiding behind this wall of simple “observations,” “defending the church,” and going on the offensive after anyone who doesn’t buy into the truth claims of FAIR’s interpretation of LDS doctrine.
Allen Wyatt says
Perhaps we see the world differently, Patrick. I really wasn’t doing anything except sharing observations.
Besides, how do you know they aren’t simple “observations” or “defending the church” unless you presume, from the get-go, that FAIR is acting out of bad faith or bad intent?
And if this observational essay was really intended to go “on the offensive after anyone who doesn’t buy into” whatever it is you think FAIR is selling, then why would I even bother to say, right up front, that the name of the apostate doesn’t really matter? If I was “going after” him, then wouldn’t it have been more effective to provide his name? Or, perhaps, the name of the athiest I cite in the middle of the essay?
I’m sorry, but I just don’t see that your conclusion, based on this essay, exhibits what you say it does.
-Allen
Patrick says
Allen, I wasn’t talking about this essay in isolation. I don’t presume “from the get-go” that FAIR is acting out of bad intent. I never leveled such charges against you.
The point is that FAIR prides itself on showing those antis who’s boss, and an essay blasting (or “observing”) someone else’s pride is rich in irony. Not naming the person doesn’t change the fact that you’re going after him.
Clearly we see the world differently. And I, too, am sorry, but I just don’t see your conclusion.
Keller says
Patrick,
One of my hopes for this blog is that it will help FAIR clean up its image. While some individuals may have occasionally entered into the spirit of one-upmanship with critics, I think as a whole we don’t really care about that. Our primary audience is members of the church who may have encountered criticism that has left them shaken. We realize that bashing critics is not going to be appealing to that audience and indeed counterproductive.
I have seen a lot of humility by FAIR members when we have come together to work on various projects, especially creating articles for the wiki. Even though many of us are strongly opinionated and well-studied on some of the controversial subjects, for the most part we have avoided the turf battles that have gone on, for example, in Wikipedia. It has been a beautiful thing to see at times as individual egos have been sacrificed for the benefit of providing what is, in essence, a charitable service for our fellow members of Zion.
Edwin says
Patrick,
Having been a member of FAIR for over 4 years, I can state rather categorically that I have never seen any sign of boasting by FAIR members over critics. The only place I have seen it at all is the FAIR boards that we divested to the mormon apologetics boards, and even there it was not FAIR members but regular LDS participants. That was (and is) rather a wild and raucus place. FAIR, if it prides itself on anything, it is in providing a place where a member can go to find good information about the Church taught from a believing perspective.
Patrick says
Keller, thank you for the response. While I take issue with the notion that many FAIR members are “well-studied” on the “controversial subjects,” it’s good to hear that some of you are at least aware of the self-created negative image of FAIR.
Edwin, did you even read Keller’s comment? Regarding the following:
Having been a member of FAIR for over 4 years, I can state rather categorically that I have never seen any sign of boasting by FAIR members over critics.
Of course you have never seen any sign of it. Why? Because, as you remind us, you’ve “been a member of FAIR for over 4 years,” and thus very likely part of the problem.
Edwin says
Ah, very glib. You prove that you can dismiss without cause, and judge without evidence. How remarkable. Perhaps you should look to your own heart for that pride you accuse others of.
Patrick says
Ah, very glib. You prove that you can dismiss without cause, and judge without evidence. How remarkable. Perhaps you should look to your own heart for that pride you accuse others of.
I can state rather categorically that I am not glib. Rather, I am just making observations.
Keller says
My comment or FAIR’s image had more to do with perception than reality, so I don’t entirely agree that the problem is self-created. However, I do take the position that more can be done to fix the perception problem. I think FAIR can do a better job communicating about its intentions.
I agree with Edwin that I can’t recall any FAIR member using the volunteer list to boast about bashing exploits, yet I can personally say I have silently rejoiced in being able to hold my own against some critics and gotten dejected when I wasn’t able to do so. I feel debater’s remorse sometimes, like I won the battle but lost the war. However my message board participation was NOT endorsed by FAIR in any way (and indeed discouraged to some extent).
I think most of the FAIR volunteers would agree with me that Edwin is one of the most humble guys involved and a good example for the rest of us.
Keller says
“Well studied” was a poor choice of words on my part. It would be impossible to produce all the evidence for that claim and yet still to able to play the we are humble-and-proud-of-it card. 🙂
Keller says
Allen’s observations on pride remind me of a C.S. Lewis quotation another FAIR volunteer brought to my attention a few weeks ago. Lewis, if you will recall had quite a bit to say about pride and was an influence behind President Benson’s talk on the subject.
Clark says
(Taking the discussion here from the Juvenile Instructor thread)
Patrick, it might be much more helpful if, when you make such charges, you could be more specific in what sentences you see as the problem. Otherwise all we have to go on are very vague sweeping interpretations by you. While I’m sure you’re quite sincere in your views, it’s awfully hard to discuss them. If we can point to a text and say, “well I don’t think that reading is fair for reasons A, B, and C” then we can have more nuanced discussion.
Otherwise we’re just swiping at shadows.
Certainly FAIR (and FARMS) have perception problems. Some of those are fair whereas most (in my opinion) are false. I think divesting themselves of the forum was wise. (I certainly encouraged that back when I still had time to volunteer for FAIR) I’ve not been associated with FAIR for some months now. However I remember when I was a member constant encouragement of humility and fairness as well as trying to prevent outright bashing. Style guides and the like were often discussed on the mailing list.
That’s not to say the occasional response or article doesn’t get through with perhaps unfortunate rhetoric. However I think those are by far the minority. It’s just that some point to a few mistakes as if they are characteristic of the whole. (I think this happens with FARMS as well where a small handful of articles are discussed and the vast majority ignored)
Greg Smith says
One must remember that editing is part of the process.
Speaking personally, when I write, I don’t wordsmith every phrase. Some people can do that, other people do better getting the whole argument or thesis down clearly, and then cleaning it up. That’s more me.
And, one can get tunnel vision about how one is sounding to someone who approaches material one labors over “fresh.”
I’ve written things in draft form that FAIR members have said, “Wow, that sounds really snarky. Can we fix it?” And they’re (usually!) right. But, I can honestly say that I (usually!) didn’t mean it–it just “came out that way,” or in context could too easily be read this way. It was usually the result of writing quickly or “off the cuff.”
Thus, things said in draft form or message boards are far more likely to get the broad strokes right, and the nuances less so. Latent hositlity/pride on the author’s part is one possible reason for such slips, but I don’t think they’re the only, or most important ones. In my own experience, more often than not it’s simply the vagaries of communicating about complex issues.