FairMormon

Save the date! 2019 FairMormon Conference August 7-9
(You can still read 2018 talks or watch streaming.)

Uncategorized

Anger Without A Cause? – President Oaks and a False Narrative

by

 

The debate surrounding LGBT issues is one high in emotion and passion, with all sides having strongly held beliefs and entrenched views. Often, the flash point of these debates revolves around the religious beliefs of those who question the morality of LGBT behavior. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is no exception to this rule, being one of the more conservative religions when it comes to this topic. One church leader in particular has himself become a lightning rod on the subject.

“Harmful rhetoric” and “discrimination” were alleged to have been a part of President Dallin H. Oaks’ recent General Conference talk entitled Truth and the Plan. These claims were made by Lori Davis, a Board Member of a group called Mama Dragons, a group whose stated purpose is to provide support for Mormon and former Mormon mothers of LGBT children. A brief review of social media and other contemporary news articles will quickly demonstrate that the Mama Dragons were not alone in their feelings that some wrong was committed by Elder Oaks. Others actually implied that people may have to call a crisis line following the talk. Such drastic condemnation would certainly lead the reasonable reader to ask what horrible thing President Oaks said to possibly elicit such a strong response.

Unfortunately, despite the strong rhetoric, many who made the condemning statements on social media and elsewhere failed to cite what words were actually offensive. General indignation seemed to be sufficient for those people. Some, fortunately, were more specific. I’d like to look at several of them, and analyze what they might tell us about this issue, how those from different viewpoints are approaching it, and what we can learn from it. [Read more…] about Anger Without A Cause? – President Oaks and a False Narrative

A Review of: Exploring the Apocrypha from a Latter-day Saint Perspective by Dr. Jared W. Ludlow.

by

 

The first book of the Standard Works I studied in Early Morning Seminary was Doctrine and Covenants. I remember how puzzled I was to read D&C 91:

1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you concerning the Apocrypha—There are many things contained therein that are true, and it is mostly translated correctly;

2 There are many things contained therein that are not true, which are interpolations by the hands of men.

3 Verily, I say unto you, that it is not needful that the Apocrypha should be translated.

4 Therefore, whoso readeth it, let him understand, for the Spirit manifesteth truth;

5 And whoso is enlightened by the Spirit shall obtain benefit therefrom;

6 And whoso receiveth not by the Spirit, cannot be benefited. Therefore it is not needful that it should be translated. Amen.

Having come from a Catholic background, I first didn’t know what the LORD was talking about, but our teacher then explained that this is the protestant name for what I knew as the deuterocanonical books. This left me with more questions, as for me those books had always been scripture (Catholic background, as I said), and now I heard that they were – basically –a noncanonical mixed bag.

But reading D&C 91 more carefully, I saw that the LORD was not as negative about them as I had thought first, and I studied them for myself.

Dr. Jared W. Ludlow

Back in those days, a book like Jared Ludlow’s Exploring the Apocrypha from a Latter-day Saint Perspective would have been very helpful to me. Ludlow is Professor of Ancient Scripture and Ancient Near Eastern Studies at Brigham Young University. His primary research interests are with texts related to Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, which is exactly the time period most of the Apocrypha come from. So, the author sets the stage by first discussing Apocrypha in general, including their history, and second, by showing the attitude to and usage of these ancient books LDS leaders have shown throughout church history. The main part is dedicated to discussing the contents of each one of the apocrypha, its problems and its highlights.

Aimed at the beginner, who has never read these ancient works, the book is easy to read and you do not need any background knowledge to understand and enjoy it. But being a general introduction for the interested public, a primer, and in order to be interesting to its intended audience, it does not deal with topics in depth.

So, if you have not read the apocrypha so far, if you want to get a quick overview, and if you want to know if they are worth your time, Jared Ludlows book is exactly right for you.

—

René A. Krywult, 45 years old, was born and lives in Vienna, Austria, Europe. He has been a member of FairMormon since 1998, and in 2004 he started the German branch of FairMormon. A software developer by profession his apologetic main interests are patristics, comparisons between different branches of Christianity, and interdenominational communication.

East Coast Ignorance, or Using an Emotional Event for Another Anti-Mormon Hit Piece?

by

 

President Thomas Spencer Monson (August 21, 1927 – January 2, 2018).

 

On January 3, the New York Times published the obituary for Thomas S. Monson, You can find that obituary piece here: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/03/obituaries/thomas-monson-dies.html. The piece was written by the Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Robert D. McFadden. I am sure that Mr. McFadden is an excellent journalist. This is what the New York Times says about him:

Robert D. McFadden is a senior writer on the Obituaries desk of The New York Times and the winner of the 1996 Pulitzer Prize for spot news reporting. He has covered many of New York’s major news stories in his more than 30 years as a reporter and rewrite man for the paper, and has earned a reputation as one of the finest rewrite men in the business.[1]

But, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have been pretty upset about the tone of the obituary. Comments have been made that Fidel Castro and Hugh Hefner were painted in a better light than President Thomas Monson who dedicated his life to serving others. There have been numerous blog posts, Facebook posts, and articles discussing this. One example can be found in The Atlantic here: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/mormon-prophet/549773/.

The outrage over the obituary is strong enough that on January 8, the obituary editor put out an explanation defending the article here: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/08/reader-center/thomas-monson-obituary.html. One can argue if the explanation helped or hurt their cause. The editor talks about covering the public Monson and not the private one. The public Thomas Monson was a man of service, not one of great controversy. Perhaps they are just not informed? That’s not a good position to take for a newspaper.

The New York Times is in the business of selling newspapers and selling advertising. While we all hope they treat a good man fairly, they have the right to take whatever tone they wish. Being a newspaper man before he became a Church official, I’m sure President Monson appreciates that. So, I will leave matters of tone for others to debate.

What I will address is the accuracy of the writing. I know the New York Times is concerned about accurate news reporting, and there are some serious factual errors in this story that should be corrected.

Here they are in the order they appear, not necessarily in order of importance.

  1. “Many Mormons faced sanctions for joining online forums questioning church positions on women’s roles.”

I am not aware of ANY Mormons who have faced sanctions for joining an online forum or for questioning the Church positions on women’s roles. They will need to give examples. We have thousands, and probably millions of members who belong to many forums. We have members who are advocates of women rights and roles who are faithful members. I know some who work in the Church Office Building. I know members who hold differing views on women’s roles, homosexuality, and many political and social issues. Kate Kelly is cited in the article—perhaps the author thinks she is an example of this, but Kate Kelly was not excommunicated for joining a forum or even questioning the Church’s positions. There is a difference between questioning and actively campaigning against the Church and its teachings. Kate Kelly did the latter.

  1. “As the 16th president of the Latter-day Saints, succeeding Gordon B. Hinckley, Mr. Monson faced another test when church members, increasingly scouring online sources, found apparent contradictions between historical records and church teachings, which the church regards as God-given and literally true.”

Perhaps I am nit-picking on this one, but I take some umbrage with the idea that since Gordon B. Hinckley apparent contradictions have been found. The Church has an exceptional history department and there are numerous conferences on Church history – including the FairMormon conference. We have been discussing these topics for years. Additionally, we aren’t fundamentalist evangelicals in that every doctrine and practice is directly from God. This would be especially true with items related to history and science which are full of discovery. Yes, we have divinely inspired teachings, but they typically don’t have anything to do with history.

  1. “Some critics, including the website OnceDelivered.net, which identified itself as an expression of the Baptist faith, said the Latter-day Saints church had previously contended that Smith had been happily married to only one woman, and said the new teaching had used Scripture to “address the inconvenient truth of Smith’s polygamy.””

There are two issues here: First, one has to question why the New York Times reporter sought out a Website that states, “Mormonism fits a classic definition of a cult” and “So, is Mormonism a cult? According to our definition, yes.” Most LDS would rightfully classify OnceDelivered.net to be an anti-Mormon Website. There are many Websites out there that attack Mormonism with little understanding of what we actually teach and believe. It seems odd that the New York Times would be quoting from one for an obituary.

Secondly, the claim that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the term Latter-day Saints church would be incorrect and is offensive to most Mormons which underscores the lack of source reliability) previously contended that Joseph Smith was married to only one woman is incorrect. Yes, there are critics who have falsely made that claim, but the idea of plural marriage is taught by Joseph Smith and is part of our scripture in Doctrine and Covenants section 132 which can be found online at https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132. That section was written in July 1843. Another activity you can try is to go to the Official Church Website LDS.org and type “Plural Marriage” into the search box. Many of those articles listed were written prior to Thomas S. Monson becoming prophet. There are many books that talk about this. One of our FairMormon volunteers stated he has 40 – 50 books on his shelf that discuss this topic. It was one of the main topics of the Reed Smoot Hearings in congress from 1904 – 1907. There is no new teaching on this. Ask most New Yorkers if early Mormons practiced polygamy and they would say yes. Many probably believe we still do. To say that we taught otherwise would be unbelievable.

  1. “In recent years, the church allowed historians access to church documents and records to a remarkable degree. Some published their findings online and in printed volumes, although they were usually vetted by church leaders.”

Having worked extensively with Church historians and independent historians, I have NEVER heard of Church leaders vetting anything except what is posted on the official Church Website to represent their position. Just the opposite is true. The Joseph Smith Papers are being published in their entirety on the Church Website. I have had complete freedom to publish anything without any vetting or oversight. There are LDS History conferences that are attended by Church Historians and many controversial and difficult topics are addressed. FairMormon has a conference every year where we talk about Church history. No one has ever vetted our talks.

The New York Times Obituary on President Thomas S. Monson needs a retraction and a rewrite. I’m sure the Times is interested in accuracy. Not correcting the record looks mean spirited, or ignorant. Neither of those positions is something that most newspapers aspire to be.

 

Scott Gordon serves as President of FairMormon, a non-profit corporation staffed by volunteers dedicated to helping members deal with issues raised by critics of the LDS faith. He has an MBA from Brigham Young University, and a BA in Organizational Communications from Brigham Young University. He is currently an instructor of business and technology at Shasta College in Redding, California. Scott has held many positions in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints including serving as a bishop for six years. He currently serves as Ward Mission Leader. He is married and has five children.

 

 

How a Proper Translation of Genesis 1:1 Underscores the Atonement-like Properties of Creation.

by

 

 

As Latter-day Saints, we believe that the atonement plays a central role across all eternity. And though I don’t understand all the ways in which that is true, I was recently fascinated by commentary on Genesis 1 from “The Jewish Study Bible”. Commentary that suggests something atonement-like was going on at the very beginning of creation.

Genesis 1 is Best Translated as God Ordering the Universe from Pre-existing Chaos

 The Jewish Study Bible translates Genesis 1:1-2 like this:

When God began to create heaven and earth – the earth being unformed and void.

Pay careful attention to the subtle grammar of this sentence. The commentary suggests that the proper translation of these verses is not of a God creating a universe out of nothing, but of a God that “began” creation when the universe was still “unformed” and chaotic.

Furthermore, the footnotes add that Modern readers like to think the opposite of something is nothing, but to the ancients the opposite of something is chaos. A chaos they thought has malevolent power. Thus, the proper translation of these versus portrays a God who creates through taming a malevolent chaos.

The Wikipedia also makes similar observations.

Is This God More Powerful Than the Traditional God Who Creates Something Out of Nothing?

 The Jewish Study Bible then informs us that this idea has generated debates between Rabbis. The Rabbis who prefer the traditional “ex-nihilo” translation of Genesis suggest this “better” translation implies God built his kingdom on a dung hill. Also, they worry that if the universe has an existence independent of God, this undermines basic theology. For one, if God is really battling in chaos, are we certain He is in control? If chaos ruled once, can it rule again?

The response other Rabbis have given is that such a God is the more powerful One. Which is more impressive: A God Who can create what He wants in the context of no opposition? Or One that has accomplished similar creative goals in the face of opposition?

To use a horrible analogy, who is the more impressive gamer: one playing Sim City who creates the world he wants because all the cheat codes were up his sleeves, or one who had to fight through the game’s intrinsic opposition?

Furthermore, this latter God may be free from the problem of evil described below.

Why This Translation is Interesting in Light of the Atonement

One way to look at the atonement is that God is trying to turn you into a perfect person. An exalted creation. To use a CS Lewis analogy: you may be perfectly fine with being a little cottage. But God’s plan involves turning you into a palace, as difficult as those renovations may be.

In going about this “exalted creation”, a common question raised is: if God can create whatever He wants, why doesn’t He just create you perfect from the beginning? This is fundamentally the “problem of evil“.

This translation would supply a response to that by changing our perspective on how God must create. If from “the beginning” God’s creative plans have required the overthrow of pre-existent chaos, perhaps for us to become perfect “like Him” similarly requires a battle of that same chaos. It’s as if the “opposition of all things” we must overcome is a continuation of the process that started in Genesis 1.  As if learning to be creative like God is not learning to simply will things into existence, but is learning how to roll up our sleeves and with Him defeat the chaos that confronts us.

This makes Genesis 1:1 even more profound than merely being a verse about creation. It may be a verse that underscores what is at the heart of the entire plan of salvation.

Why Scientists, Strangely Enough, Should Find This Translation Interesting

It has been the hobby horse of recent scientists to suggest that, in the light of quantum mechanics, the opposite of something is not nothing but instead some quantum chaos. See recent books by Stephen Hawking and Lawrence Krauss for example. Now admittedly these books have been blasted for being filled with bad philosophy in their attempt to reduce the entire universe to a few 20th century physics principles the authors coincidentally specialized in. (Not too different from biologists I have met who likewise attempt attribute everything about the known universe to the evolutionary principles they were blessed to study in graduate school) But these philosophically bad reductionist errors are beside the point here.

My larger point is that there is a growing belief among scientists that quantum mechanics suggests that the opposite of something is not nothing, but a “quantum”-like chaos. Remove “everything” in a quantum mechanical system in an attempt to obtain “nothing”, and you are still left with a randomly “fluctuating” zero point energy. An energy with a chaotic structure that I will not speculate too much about as we don’t completely understand it, but one that at least hints that physical systems devoid of organized structure are not “filled” with nothing, but instead something akin to chaos.

Thus, it’s interesting that the “more accurate” translation of a thousands of years old Genesis verse may have been consistent this entire time with physics that we did not know until very recently. That before the “something” that we call our universe was not nothing, but a chaos that had to somehow be “tamed”. And though how that was done remains a mystery to both scientists and theologians, it appears Genesis is correct with the idea that it needed to be done.

Hat Tip to Joseph Smith

As you all know, Joseph said basically the same thing in the King Follett Discourse:

Doesn’t the Bible say he created the world?” And they infer, from the word create, that it must have been made out of nothing. Now, the word create came from the word baurau, which does not mean to create out of nothing; it means to organize; the same as a man would organize materials and build a ship. Hence we infer that God had materials to organize the world out of chaos—chaotic matter, which is element, and in which dwells all the glory.

Thus, despite his flaws, Joseph continues to be a man whose teachings are quite impressive.  Even though Joseph’s understanding of Hebrew pales in comparison to the great Rabbis of history referred to in this commentary, he demonstrates time and again fascinating level of inspiration.

—

Joseph Smidt is a physicist in the X-Theoretical Division (XTD) at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) where he currently sits as the cosmology team lead for LANL’s Center for Theoretical Astrophysics (CTA) as well as a point of contact for the US nuclear stockpile. His research is split between cosmology, astrophysics, inertial confinement fusion and nuclear weapon design. He has published over 50 papers in the open literature on a wide range of early universe topics from supersymmetry and cosmic inflation to how the first stars and galaxies formed. Joseph obtained his PhD in physics at the University of California, Irvine, and double majored in physics and mathematics at BYU.  He was married to his wife in the Salt Lake Temple, has five wonderful children, and currently serves as stake clerk in the Santa Fe New Mexico Stake.

The Enlightenment of Neo-Mormons

by

In Greek, the word neos means “new.” In English, the prefix “neo” generally refers to something that is new, revived, or newly refreshed. We have compounds such as neo-classic, neo-Darwinism, neo-Nazis, neo-Hellenism, neo-Platonism, neo-orthodox Mormons, and more.

While Neo-Mormons might refer to Mormons who take a new or modified approach to Mormon matters, for the purpose of this post Neo-Mormons refer to those who compare their exit from Mormonism to the character in the fictional movie, The Matrix.

For those who haven’t seen the movie, Keanu Reeves plays the character of Thomas Anderson, a computer programmer and infamous hacker known as “Neo” (the name by which he is known throughout the movie). Morpheus, another infamous hacker (who is almost as much myth as legend), contacts Neo to warn him that his life in danger.

After meeting face to face, Morpheus explains that the world in which Neo lives is not “real” but offers Neo the opportunity to transition to the real world. Neo can either swallow a red pill which will extract him from the “Matrix” (the computer-generated world in which he lives) or he can choose to swallow the blue pill which will cause Neo to wake up in his bed at home, forgetting the entire conversation and everything about the Matrix. If he takes the red pill, he could never go back to the way things were. If he takes the blue pill, he could be happily ignorant to reality. Neo takes the red pill, wakes up in the “real” world and discovers that the Matrix was a world of little more than digital smoke and mirrors.

Neo’s red pill vs. blue pill dilemma has frequently been commandeered by former Mormons in their attempt to explain their new perspective of reality once they left Mormonism. According to several ex-Mormons, they, like Neo, were confronted at some point with information that caused (or even forced) them to choose between the red pill and blue pill. In every case in which I’ve seen the analogy used, the former (or teetering) member took the red pill. They became “enlightened,” and discovered the “truth,” or “reality” of Mormonism.

This new enlightenment allowed them, like Neo, to see (sometimes for the first time) truth with eyes wide open. That truth, they claim, destroyed the untruths found in Mormonism and exposed it as a man-made institution sitting on a continuum somewhere between an evil enterprise and a well-meaning assembly of honorable but gullible dupes.

While I understand that there is no such thing as a perfect analogy, I think the Neo Mormon/Matrix analogy falls flat. First, the red pill vs blue pill analogy implies that ex-Mormons are not only open to the truth but can see the truth, while believing Mormons stick their heads in the sand (taking the blue pill) and don’t want to see the new information that comes with taking the red pill.

The fact is, however, that myriad of LDS scholars, lay members, and believing students of Mormonism, are equally as informed about the supposedly troubling Mormon information. Despite seeing this same information they still accept the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith and the continuation of modern prophets today. There’s no hiding of heads in the sand, no rejecting the red pill because they don’t want to see allegedly challenging issues. The eyes of informed Latter-day Saints are at least as wide open to all the same information as any critic.

Secondly, the new information doesn’t automatically destroy basic Mormon beliefs. Taking the red pill does not automatically prove that Mormonism is false. While some people may find the critics’ interpretations of the data to be convincing, such interpretations are not the automatic definitive conclusions to understanding the data. To insist that there is only one way to interpret the data is naïve and sophomoric. There are no slam dunks proving nor debunking Mormonism. There is only evidence, and evidence must be weighed.

Thirdly, everyone assumes they are “right.” We have reasons for our beliefs. Those reasons may not be transferrable; they may not, for example, convince others, even when they make sense to us. The fact is—and a growing number of studies bear this out—intellect alone does not impel humans to believe or disbelieve. In other words, despite the ridicule by some critics who claim that believers rely on “feelings” while they (the critics) rely on reason, the simple fact is that all people’s beliefs are influenced, at least to some degree, by “feelings.” No human is a purely rational creature.

Differences in religious opinions and beliefs are not anything like what we might imagine with a fictional Neo-Mormon who takes the red pill and a believing Mormon who takes the blue pill. Instead, the differences are much more akin to what we find among people who embrace divergent political views. If you are a staunch Democrat it doesn’t mean that you’ve taken the red pill—that your eyes are wide open—and that Republicans have swallowed the blue pill. If you are a staunch Republican, you are not seeing reality while your Democrat friends hide their heads in the sand. Some members of each party may like to think that’s the case, but it isn’t.

Lastly, we run into the problem of changing minds. Just as some Democrats become Republicans and some Republicans become Democrats, some members go through periods of disbelief, doubt, and possibly even separation from Mormonism. I have a couple of friends who have been married to the same spouse several times. They get divorced, then remarried, more than once—each time to the same person. Some members or former members seem to have a similar relationship with the Church. They are members (perhaps from birth), then leave the church over “troubling” issues, then return because of spiritual or intellectual resolution, then leave again over spiritual or intellectual quandaries, and so forth.

In which phase of their change can they claim to be the surest of their beliefs? Obviously, it would be the most current phase. They can look back and tell themselves that in their earlier phase they were duped, but this time they got it right. The problem is, however, that we all tell ourselves this same story (it’s a form of confirmation bias). Studies show that our memories of the past are influenced by our present selves—in other words, we can’t accurately remember how we felt about our past situation because we can’t escape our current situation.

As I’ve matured in life, wisdom, and Gospel understanding, I’ve had to modify paradigms many times—rejecting those things that I’ve found to be weak, and embracing those things which I’ve found to be strong. It would be foolish of me to think that I’ve reach a zenith—that I’ve reached a point where I’m right about everything I reject, and never wrong about everything I accept. I’m among those who has seen all the details supposedly hidden in the Matrix. I’ve seen the same data which allegedly is revealed to those Neo-Mormons who swallow the red pill. And yet, I believe.

For me, the same data that causes some members to falter simply illuminates the world I already knew. I absolutely had to modify my worldview by absorbing new facts, rejecting common myths, and by recontextualizing some of the things which didn’t seem to fit my previous world-view (which, by the way, is the same modification process we find in the evolution and revolution of scientific paradigms). From my current perspective, however, I find that most of the data fits comfortably within a framework that I embraced.

While I like to think that my eyes are opened wider with every new bit of data, I’ve found that new discoveries haven’t forced (or enticed) me into rejecting Mormonism as a mirage, a fabrication, or a Matrix of human creation. And just because someone else comes to a different conclusion than my own (based on the same data) doesn’t mean that they are more correct, that they’ve swallowed the red pill while I swallowed the blue pill, hid my head in the sand, and simply ignored conflicting information.

From a Matrix analogy, I don’t think that there are any real Neo-Mormons. There are no red pills and blue pills which ultimately expose or conceal the truth. As both science and religion tells us, we are all related and part of something greater than our individual selves. All humans are very similar—including the fact that we are faced with similar cognitive, physical, psychological, and emotional challenges and strengths— and we are also all unique in interesting and complex ways.

This, to me, is what makes God’s plan—as expressed in the LDS faith—so appealing. It’s impossible for you to fully know me, or me to fully know you. We can’t escape our own heads, or our physiological influences or impediments. We can never fully know when we are the ones who are doing the “acting” or when we are being “acted upon” (2 Ne. 2:14).

We are told not to judge others (outside of specific instances involving ecclesiastical or legislative authority) because we are not only weak ourselves and influenced by too many factors to be good judges, but because we cannot know all the factors involved in someone else’s choices. Only God knows. He knows why we do the things we do, say the things we say, and make the choices we make.

While some of those who have left Mormonism (or who consider leaving Mormonism) believe that they can see reality, the truth is that their eyesight is no better than that of believers. Their logic and reasoning is no better than that of believers. And they certainly are no more open to the “truth” because they decided to reject Mormonism, than those who accept Mormonism. Swallowing the red pill simply means that you consciously chose to reject Mormonism because of how you interpret the data. Swallowing the blue pill means that you consciously chose to accept Mormonism because of how you interpret the data.

If there is an analogy to be made with the movie The Matrix it is this: If we believe that a rejection of Mormonism automatically comes with seeing the ambiguities in Mormon history or the scriptures—that the data automatically compels the intellectually honest to reject the LDS faith and that the data cannot be honestly accepted as consistent with LDS faith claims—then we are believing in an illusion and we are still trapped in the Matrix.

—

Michael R. Ash is the author of: Of Faith and Reason: 80 Evidences Supporting The Prophet Joseph Smith. He is the owner and operator of MormonFortress.com and is on the management team for FairMormon. He has been published in Sunstone, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, the Maxwell Institute’s FARMS Review, and is the author of Shaken Faith Syndrome: Strengthening One’s Testimony in the Face of Criticism and Doubt. He and his wife live in Ogden, Utah, and have three daughters.

Some Thoughts on Finding “Truth”: The Right Tool for the Job

by

Nicolaus Copernicus Monument by Bertel Thorvaldsen

According to the on-line Oxford Dictionary, science is defined as “the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.”[i] In short, science works by interpreting data, and data is typically collected through observations (using eyes, computers, microscopes, etc.).

Thousands of years ago, in the early days of human history, our ancestors could see that the sun, moon, planets, and stars moved across the sky. Direct observation demonstrated that the sun rose in the east and set in the west. In winter months, the days became shorter, and in the summer, longer. The Milky Way also rises from the horizon. North Americans watch the ribbon of stars arch into the sky, nearly paralleling the horizon in the winter months, and arching straight overhead during the summer months.

Very early humans recorded the movement of these celestial objects. NASA, for example, points to the discovery of an ancient lunar calendar that dates to about 32,000 B.C.[ii] The ancient Egyptians likewise had an annual calendar that was based on the “rhythms of the farming year.”[iii] The “morning rising of Sirius or the morning setting of Pleiades, were taken as announcing the Nile flood or as a reminder to plough.”[iv]

All evidence, and the direct eye-witness observations of millions of people all over the world, testified that celestial objects moved above the Earth. Any argument for an alternative interpretation of the observable data would have been preposterous. In fact, when the Greek mathematician and astronomer Aristarchus (about 300 B.C.) suggested that the Earth revolved around the sun (rather than the sun around the Earth), his arguments were rejected because they didn’t fit the prevailing understanding of the cosmos.

It was nearly 2000 years later before Copernicus revived the theory in the mid-1500s (and his writings, like Aristarchus before him, were initially rejected by many people). The Copernicus model was imperfect, however, and it wasn’t until Kepler suggested elliptical orbits (instead of circular orbits) that some of the problems began to fade. In 1632 Galileo could support the Copernicus/Kepler model with observations made through the newly invented telescope.

For thousands of years before Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo, humans were technically “wrong” regarding what they saw with their very eyes. They weren’t wrong that the sky seemed to move, and they weren’t wrong knowing when to plant and harvest, but they didn’t have a complete understanding as to how the sky appeared to move. Sixteenth-century astronomers added information to the undeniable fact that the sky appears to move, by showing that the universe was not geocentric (Earth-centered), but rather that the universe was heliocentric (sun-centered). While the demarcation between accurate and inaccurate might be debated, I see the Copernicus/Kepler resolution as building on previously accurate beliefs, and correcting erroneous beliefs. There really is an Earth, a sun, a moon, planets, and stars, and they somehow move in predictable patterns with very real relationships to each other.

In our modern world, more modifications were made thanks to better astronomical tools. We now know that a heliocentric universe is also incorrect. Our planets orbit around the sun, but the universe doesn’t. Our solar system orbits around the center of our Milky Way Galaxy, and our galaxy is just one of perhaps a hundred billion galaxies in the observable universe.[v] Each new refinement comes, in part, by building on the discoveries and calculations of previous scientists, as well as continually improved technology (or tools) which offer greater access to understanding the space in which we live.

Even though scientific understanding has evolved tremendously in the course of human history, each generation is typically pretty confident that they have the answers (or are, at least, headed in the right direction). While the humble and inquisitive can acknowledge that we still have a lot to learn, it’s human nature to believe that we are probably right. It’s hard to imagine that some of our cherished truths might be overturned or drastically altered with additional discoveries—but some of them will.

While we know more today (scientifically) and have achieved more in modern times (technologically) than we might have even imaged tens of thousands of years ago, I find it fascinating that the more we learn and achieve, the more we discover, ironically, that there is an even greater collective of things which are unknown.

It’s as if we achieve knowledge and technology by discovering a new doorway, but each door we open leads to the discovery of enormous storerooms filled with new data and information that needs exploration and answers. We might reach inside some of the rooms to examine and learn about those things contained therein, but we are never quite able to learn the full details of everything inside every room.

Sometimes, there are doorways within those rooms that lead to new related, yet undiscovered, information. And as we examine the few bits of things we can analyze and measure, new doors are opened just down the hall and we again peek into storerooms full of new mysteries. The opening of doors to the unknown seems to outpace those things which we can fully comprehend. The pursuit of such mysteries is exciting—especially as puzzles are solved and pieces come together—but is also never-ending.

One of the theoretical pursuits of science is to find the “theory for everything”—a unifying principal or paradigm that explains everything. We want to understand the overall structure of the building which houses all the doors, the rooms to which they lead, and the furnishings within. We hope—or at least suspect—that there may be a unifying set of laws that govern everything. But in the meantime, we find that some of the different rooms seem to have laws which don’t cooperate with the laws in other rooms.

A few years ago, I read a book entitled, Knocking on Heaven’s Door: How Physics and Scientific Thinking Illuminate the Universe and the Modern World, by Dr. Lisa Randall. Randall is one of America’s leading scientists on theoretical particle physics and cosmology, and her religious beliefs seem to be on the continuum somewhere between agnostic and atheist. Nevertheless, she recognizes that a turf war between science and religion can be avoided if we realize that the two perspectives don’t necessarily pitch their tents in the same campground. “Science is not religion. We’re not going to be able to answer the ‘why’ questions. … Religion asks questions about morals, whereas science just asks questions about the natural world.”[vi]

I’ve often heard those who lean toward the agnostic/atheist point of view as saying something to the effect: “I don’t believe that feelings are accurate barometers of truth”—and by “feelings” they are, of course, referring to spiritual promptings, manifestations, revelations, inspirations, or any other communication which comes via supernatural discourse or impressions.

The problems with such a claim, however, are numerous. First, I personally don’t believe that “feelings” accurately describes how I’ve received spiritual enlightenment (although this is a topic for another time). Secondly, all humans incorporate “feelings” in their decision-making process (yes, even scientists—which is part of the reason that science occasionally reverses the conclusions of previous positions). Thirdly, “truth” doesn’t universally describe all conclusions (which are often temporary points of consensus) in all fields of knowledge (including spiritual knowledge).

As noted above, there is yet to be discovered a “theory for everything,” and we often run into seemingly conflicting laws in the world of physics. Randall explains, for example, that “Newton’s laws are instrumental and correct, but they cease to apply at or near the speed of light where Einstein’s theory applies. Newton’s laws are at the same time both correct and incomplete. They apply over a limited domain.”[vii] This, in some ways, is not unlike what we find with the moving sky, moving Earth, and moving solar system models. All three positions have validity depending on one’s perspective and ability to measure and observe.

“As scales decrease,” notes Randall, “matter seems to be governed by properties so different that they appear to be part of entirely different universes.”[viii] Newton’s laws work well for the types of things he was able to observe (and the same kinds of things we can observe today) but at very small distances the rules change and we have to apply quantum mechanics. Likewise, at extremely high speeds the rules of relativity take over. With the enormous densities of black holes, we must turn to general relativity.[ix]

The rules and principles of quantum mechanics, string theories, and general relativity are theoretical tools to help us better understand our world and the cosmos. Just as the telescope helped humans understand the solar system, the microscope helped us understand the miniature world around us, and as DNA helps us understand our physical relationship to life on this planet, so likewise tools such as the Large Hadron Collider (nearly 600 feet underground, beneath the France-Switzerland border) help us understand the early formation of the universe.

The right tool is needed for each different job. We can’t measure heat with a hammer, or weight with a yardstick. When it comes to understanding spiritual truths, we must use spiritual tools such as humility, scriptures study, and prayer. There are currently no scientific tools available to examine the existence of God or the reality of the Resurrection.

Conversely, it’s important to recognize that the Holy Ghost reveals all of those that are “expedient,” or necessary, to return to God (D&C 75:10), not necessarily those things which explain quarks, black holes, gravity, Earth’s diversity of life, or even Book of Mormon geography. Revelation on scientific principles are typically not “expedient” for our divine family reunion.

The late scientist, Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, advocated what he termed “non-overlapping magisteria” (NOMA) for the supposed conflict between science and religion. Gould defined “magisteria”—a term he borrowed from Pope John Paul II—as “a domain where one form of teaching holds the appropriate tools for meaningful dialogue and resolution.”[x] While not all of his atheist friends agreed with Gould, the scholar argued that the domains of religion and science don’t overlap.

NOMA also cuts both ways. If religion can no longer dictate the nature of factual conclusions residing properly within the magisterium of science, then scientists cannot claim higher insight into moral truth from any superior knowledge of the world’s empirical constitution.[xi]

Truth is truth, and while the Holy Ghost may certainly prompt or inspire scientists and scholars, we should be open to accepting the scientific discoveries about the natural world because science offers the best tools for discovering those truths. As Joseph Smith said, “One of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may.”[xii]

While Randall sees no reason to believe in a God, and although she agrees that scientific tools cannot measure the existence of a divine being, she nevertheless believes that God, if He exists, should leave some sort of fingerprint on those things which can be measured by science. “…it is inconceivable from a scientific perspective,” she writes, “that God could continue to intervene without introducing some material trace of his actions.”[xiii] If Randall knew me and my religious beliefs, she might be surprised to find that I agree with her.

I personally believe that there is a grand unifying theory for everything; that there are top-tier laws and principles which govern all areas of physics. I also believe, however, that the grand unifying theory for everything governs all facets in our universe, including not only the physical world, but also the unseen world of the spiritual realm, and the moral codes of the divine realm. This grand law, is the law of God. Like the pinnacle of a pyramid, it sits above all other subordinate laws, including those physical laws discovered in science. If we fully understood the grand divine law, we would see that the spiritual world, moral principles, and physics are intertwined and are not—in the big scheme of existence—contrary to the other laws.

The problem is that we simply don’t know enough about physics, the cosmos, and our own material universe to confidently state with certainty that God’s imprint is absent. Before we understood those light waves which are invisible to human eyes, those waves were, for all intents and purposes, non-existent. While we can’t see—with the unaided eye—x-rays or infrared light, we know they exist because we’ve discovered tools which can measure or “see” them.

Thanks to physics, we do understand more about our world and cosmos than at any other time in the past (even if that understanding is incomplete). Scientists are aware, however, that there are many more things we really don’t understand. The stuff in the universe that interacts with light, notes Randall, “constitutes only about four percent of the energy density of the universe. About 23 percent of its energy is carried by something known as dark matter that has yet to be positively ID’d.”[xiv] Dark matter somehow interacts—albeit weakly—with matter we know. Detecting it, however, has thus far remained elusive.

“Even more mysterious than dark matter,” Randall continues, “is the substance that constitutes the remaining 73 percent and that has become known as dark energy.”[xv] Einsteinian equations for the universe are based, in part, on the matter and energy found in the universe. These equations show that some other energy—“not carried by matter… particles or other stuff”—is required to exist. The conclusion is based on the observations and “measurements of the characteristics of the universe.” This dark energy “doesn’t clump like conventional matter. It doesn’t dilute as the universe expands but maintains a constant density. The expansion of the universe is slowly accelerating as a consequence of this mysterious energy, which resides throughout the universe, even if it were empty of matter.”[xvi]

Dark energy and dark matter are possibly the mere tips of enormous icebergs of undiscovered properties and laws in our universe (or perhaps just in our dimension). Most scientists who have spent any time studying what we know about the universe, seem open to the possibility that there may be multiple universes, or even multiple dimensions in our own universe. “…space,” Randall explains, “might contain more than the three dimensions we know about: up-down, forward-backward, and left-right. In particular, it could contain entirely unseen dimensions that hold the key to understanding particle properties and masses.”[xvii]

I’m a big fan of science and I believe that science, as a self-correcting discipline, is moving closer to truths about how the diversity of life developed on Earth, and how our planet and perhaps the universe was formed. As a human institution, scientific explorations have, at times, stumbled, changed positions, or hit dead ends—but then so have more than a few of our religious beliefs for the simple fact that we can’t help but see through a glass, darkly (1 Corinthians 13:12; once again, a topic for another time).

Overall, I believe that scientific truths are part of God’s universal grand truth. Not only don’t we need to fear the discoveries which science brings to light, but we need to embrace those discoveries—even if it means reexamining religious traditions that are based on human assumptions.

With so much left to learn and discover, I think it’s a bit naïve to claim that God’s fingerprint is missing from the physical world. We have not yet discovered all the tools we need to measure the physical world. When, or if, we ever do, I suspect that God’s fingerprint will be as visible as a human fingerprint under ultraviolet light. Until that day comes, however, God has already given us the right tools to know that He is there. It’s found in all religions and in all cultures.

All people of the Earth—at every stage of known history—are given the ability to seek and find God through the spiritual practices of their culture, and according to the spiritual light available. The answer to God’s existence may also come packaged in the cultural raiment of those seeking spiritual enlightenment (another topic for another discussion). God grants all His children a door which can be opened to feel his presence—a door that can be reached by every normal human, regardless of their status or stature. Neither technological abundance, nor scientific deficiency, impacts access to spiritual tools. While I believe that the revelatory tool is as much a part of God’s universal law as is our embryonic understanding of physics, this “expedient” tool is all that is necessary to mark the path which ultimately leads back to the Father.

 

[i] https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/science (accessed 9 February 2017).

 

[ii] “The Oldest Lunar Calendars,” https://sservi.nasa.gov/articles/oldest-lunar-calendars/ (accessed 9 February 2017).

 

[iii] John Romer, Egypt: From the Great Pyramid to the Fall of the Middle Kingdom, V2 (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2017), 97.

 

[iv] Bartel L. van der Waerden, Science Awakening II: The Birth of Astronomy (Noordhoff International Publishing, 1974), 13.

 

[v] http://www.physics.org/facts/sand-galaxies.asp (accessed 9 February 2017).

 

[vi] Quoted by Corey S. Powell, “The Discover Interview: Lisa Randall,” Discover (July 2006), at http://discovermagazine.com/2006/jul/interview-randall/ (accessed 9 February 2017).

 

[vii] Lisa Randall, Knocking on Heaven’s Door: How Physics and Scientific Thinking Illuminate the Universe and the Modern World (Harper Collins Publishing, 2012; Kindle Edition), 8.

 

[viii] Ibid., 69.

 

[ix] Ibid., 71.

 

[x] Stephen Jay Gould, Rock of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life (New York: Ballantine Publishing Group, 199), 3.

 

[xi] Ibid., 9-10.

 

[xii] Joseph Smith, History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 5:499.

 

[xiii] Randall, 50-51.

 

[xiv] Ibid., 119-120.

 

[xv] Ibid., 122.

 

[xvi] Ibid., 123.

 

[xvii] Ibid., 119.

 

Michael R. Ash is the author of: Of Faith and Reason: 80 Evidences Supporting The Prophet Joseph Smith. He is the owner and operator of MormonFortress.com and is on the management team for FairMormon. He has been published in Sunstone, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, the Maxwell Institute’s FARMS Review, and is the author of Shaken Faith Syndrome: Strengthening One’s Testimony in the Face of Criticism and Doubt. He and his wife live in Ogden, Utah, and have three daughters.

 

Faith and Reason 64: Ur and Olishem

by

Podcast: Download (7.0MB)

Subscribe: Android | RSS

mesopotamia

From the book: Of Faith and Reason: 80 Evidences Supporting

the Prophet Joseph Smith by Michael R. Ash

Recent scholarship suggests that Ur might have been in northern Syria and southern Turkey in a place known anciently as Aram-Naharaim (northwestern Mesopotamia in ancient times). Not coincidentally, ancient Aram-Naharaim was under the influence of Egypt during the days of Abraham. An added layer of support comes from the Book of Abraham’s mention of the Plain of Olishem, which apparently was a part of the land of Chaldea. While the bible never mentions such a place, scholars have recently discovered and inscription of the name Olishem dating to about 2250 BC in Northwestern Syria –just where we would expect to find it according to Joseph Smith.

Michael R. Ash is the author of: Of Faith and Reason: 80 Evidences Supporting The Prophet Joseph Smith. He is the owner and operator of MormonFortress.com and is on the management team for FairMormon. He has been published in Sunstone, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, the Maxwell Institute’s FARMS Review, and is the author of Shaken Faith Syndrome: Strengthening One’s Testimony in the Face of Criticism and Doubt.  He and his wife live in Ogden, Utah, and have three daughters.

Julianne Dehlin Hatton  has worked as a News Director at an NPR affiliate, Television Host, News Anchor, and Airborne Traffic Reporter. She graduated with an MSSc from the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse University in 2008. Julianne and her husband Thomas are the parents of four children.

Music for Faith and Reason is provided by Arthur Hatton.

Faith and Reason 59: Barley

by

Podcast: Download (6.4MB)

Subscribe: Android | RSS

Barley

From the book: Of Faith and Reason: 80 Evidences Supporting the Prophet Joseph Smith

by Michael R. Ash

Barley was considered to be unknown in the New World when discovered by the Europeans. However, scientists have discovered that is entirely possible that this grain had disappeared not long after Book of Mormon times.  In an article in Science 83, Daniel B. Adams wrote of the archaeological research of the Hohokam Indians –a pre-Columbian culture that lived in Arizona from about 300 BC to AD 1450 and had been influenced by Mesoamerica. According to Adams: “The most startling evidence of Hohokam agricultural sophistication came when archaeologists found preserved grain of what looks like domesticated barley, the first ever found in the New World. Wild barleys have fibrous husk over each grain. Domesticated barley lack this. So does the Hohokam barley. Nearly half the samples from one site yielded barley”. Scholars now report that other examples of what may be “domesticated” barley have been tound in Eastern Oklahoma and southern Illinois dating from AD 1 to AD 900.

Michael R. Ash is the author of: Of Faith and Reason: 80 Evidences Supporting The Prophet Joseph Smith. He is the owner and operator of MormonFortress.com and is on the management team for FairMormon. He has been published in Sunstone, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, the Maxwell Institute’s FARMS Review, and is the author of Shaken Faith Syndrome: Strengthening One’s Testimony in the Face of Criticism and Doubt.  He and his wife live in Ogden, Utah, and have three daughters.

Julianne Dehlin Hatton  has worked as a News Director at an NPR affiliate, Television Host, News Anchor, and Airborne Traffic Reporter. She graduated with an MSSc from the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse University in 2008. Julianne and her husband Thomas are the parents of four children.

Music for Faith and Reason is provided by Arthur Hatton.

It’s a Matter of Relevance

by

Like many others, I have been watching events unfold at NAMI and have been somewhat perplexed by the various narratives that have arisen in regards to it.    I have my opinions about who is right and who is wrong (where such terms can even be said to be appropriate in such a context) but they are not relevant, or even important, to anyone but me.

I have, however, been fascinated by one of the narratives that has come forth, that being that one of the reasons that Peterson, Hamblin, Midgley, Smith, et. al., have been let go is because they have regularly engaged in vicious “ad hominem” attacks against the various people whose works they reviewed.  Of course, the charge is nothing new.  For years, critics of NAMI (and before that FARMS) have claimed that these people engage in rampant ad hominem attacks.  I must admit, therefore, that I found it somewhat amusing when Mr. John Dehlin, of Mormon Stories fame, posted a request on his Facebook page for examples of ad hominem attacks coming from NAMI.  See  http://www.facebook.com/johndehlin.  It is also quite instructive that, as of this writing, not single response of the 48+ responses that has been posted, has actually identified a single instance of an actual ad hominem attack.  One would assume that if such tactics were as common as critics often claim then such examples should be readily forthcoming.  I suspect that that the reason that such examples are not more ubiquitous is because many critics have confused sarcasm and irony for ad hominem when, in fact, they are not the same.

Nevertheless, I suspect that a sustained search of the thousands of pages of apologetic writings, both in print and on the internet, will probably turn up some example or another of an ad hominem attack.   The question is, however, is an ad hominem attack always, and for all purposes, illegitimate?  Personally, I think not.  It is, as the title of my post suggests, a question of relevance.

Relevancy, as the word suggests, is not an inherent characteristic of any piece of evidence but exists as a “relation between an item of evidence and a proposition sought to be proved.”  See George F. James, “Relevancy, Probability and the Law,” 29 Cal. L. Rev. 689, 690-91 (1941).  If a piece of evidence tends to prove (or disprove) the proposition for which it is put forth then it must needs be relevant.

As I read some of the posts in response to Mr. Dehlin’s request, two names were often given up as examples (1) Martha Beck; and (2) Grant Palmer.   I am an attorney by profession and my thinking and approach to various subjects is informed by my education and experience in that profession.  Based on that, I have to say that I find these two examples to be particularly poor examples to flaunt as proof positive of the apologist’s “ad hominem” approach.

Take, for example, Marth Beck.  Ms. Beck is the daughter of Hugh Nibley, one of the most respected LDS scholars of the past century and the man whom many would perceive as the father of modern LDS apologetics.   Without recounting the whole sordid mess, Ms. Beck wrote a book in which she made some extremely serious allegations of sexual misconduct on the part of her father towards her.  As can be imagined, LDS response was swift and, I’m sure Ms. Beck felt, quite personal.  The question is, however, was the response appropriate?  Was it appropriate to look at Ms. Beck’s personal history, character and reputation?  My reply is, How could it have been otherwise?

You see, the problem with Ms. Beck’s allegations was that they were totally unsupported by any other “evidence” which could be considered.   Therefore, she made her history and character a legitimate source of inquiry by her own allegations.  She wanted her readers to take her word for the veracity of what she claimed occurred, but how can we, as her reader, do so when we know nothing about her?  In other words, her character was “relevant” to the very case that she was making.   Your character, while not definitive, is relevant to resolving probabilities of guilty.   Thus, when many of the claims that Ms. Beck made were shown to be demonstrably false, and when her siblings came forward to directly contradict her account, her reputation for veracity became subject to examination.  Moreover, would anyone really want it any other way?  Just ask anyone who has ever been unjustly accused of a heinous crime such as sexual abuse and see if they don’t want their accuser’s reputation for honesty and integrity fully vetted.   Of course, this does not mean that a serial liar cannot also be the victim of abuse; it simply means that the liar’s testimony is going to come under additional scrutiny because it seems axiomatic that the more of a penchant a person has for shading the truth, the more likely their testimony is false.

Fortunately for all of us, allegations such as those made by Ms. Beck are rare.  That brings us to the second example that was posted on Dehlin’s board, that being the case of Grant Palmer.  At the time he published his book, An Insider’s View to Mormon Origins, several essays were published which took a searching look at Mr. Palmer’s career in CES and were highly critical of his time there.  Many people took offense to this penetrating look at the person of Mr. Palmer.  The question is, again, was this appropriate?  Or, better stated, was it “relevant”?  Again, I have a problem seeing how it could not be.

As Dr. Midgley pointed out in is review at the time, both Mr. Palmer and his publisher, made much of his “insider” status.  Why?  Obviously, because it lent a sense of credibility and expertise to the argument that he made.  If a person sets himself out as an expert in some field of endeavor, his claim to expertise is, by definition, relevant.  In a legal setting, when either side calls an expert witness, the very first thing that happens before the “expert” is allowed to present any material testimony regarding the actual facts of the case, is a vetting of his alleged experience and expertise.   Why?  Because the expert is about to present evidence to jury which he wants them to accept.  It is the jury’s job to weight that evidence and make an informed decision.  The expert’s actual level of expertise is, therefore, relevant to the case being made.

Palmer claimed, at the beginning of his book, that “for thirty-four years I was primarily an Institute director for the Church Educational System (CES)” (p. vii).  Palmer raised this issue, not his reviewers, and he used this claim to establish his credibility.  Midgley then described what he learned, with Palmer’s help:

“Palmer began his CES career teaching at the Church College of New Zealand, which is the Latter-day Saint high school in Templeview (1967—70). He was hired to teach British Empire history but was eventually shifted to teaching religion classes. For health reasons, he did not complete his four-year contract. Palmer was then made the CES coordinator, his official title, for the Whittier Stake in California (1970—73), where he also taught some college-age students at Rio Hondo Jr. College and Whittier College. He then worked one year on a Ph.D. at Brigham Young University before being again assigned as CES coordinator for the Chico Stake (1975—80), where he also taught college-age students at Butte College in Oroville, California. These assignments, where he was the sole CES employee, came at the beginning of his career. He had nothing to do with LDS Institutes of Religion, as that label is commonly understood, for the last two decades of his CES career. Why? In 1980 he relocated to the Salt Lake Valley, where he taught seminary first at East High School (1980—81) and then at Brighton High School (1981—87). He ended his CES career not teaching but counseling in a jail. What the word “primarily” means is that for nine of the thirty-four years of his CES career, while supervising local seminary teachers, he was also an institute “director.” Even if one were inclined to count his counseling work at a jail as being an institute director, which I am not willing to do, his career seems to have taken a downward spiral, but neither this fact nor any of the reasons for it is mentioned by Palmer or in the Signature hype for An Insider’s View.

I realize that some will complain that, by probing Palmer’s background (or beliefs), I offer a diversion from the issues he raises and that what I have presented is an ad hominem attack. This is nonsense. Palmer and his publisher have made his CES career an issue.[1]”

And so, it turns out that Palmer misleads his audience about his CES role and experience.  How can this not be relevant?  He raised the issue, and used it to strengthen his argument, and augment his own authority.  Those who disagree must be allowed to demonstrate that the claim is misleading.  Do the critics think it right for Palmer to get away with being deceptive?  If not, how can that be remedied if reviewers cannot point out the facts—facts which Midgley acquired with Palmer’s assistance?

Why is this relevant?  Perhaps another example, more removed LDS apologetics, can enlighten.  The PBS program Frontline recently ran a program dealing with forensic evidence and its uses in criminal trials.  A part of that program included an examination of forensic credentialing and the American College of Forensic Examiners International (ACFEI). It investigates whether certification can aid in a person’s ability to testify as an expert witness in court — and whether certain types of certification are acceptably rigorous for this role in the legal system.  In short, it turns out that ACFEI is little more than a diploma mill (you can read the report for yourself here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/criminal-justice/real-csi/dr-cyril-wecht-the-benefits-of-forensic-credentialing/).    Do you think a jury would not be interested in this fact? Would it not affect their deliberations?  At the very least, doesn’t it affect the weight given to the evidence presented?   Dozens, if not hundreds, of people were sent to jail (and in some cases received the death penalty) based at least in part on the testimony of the “experts” certified by this organization.  It would seem that the relevancy of the education and training of the person providing the testimony should be quite clear.  Moreover, how should this not apply in a scholarly context?

For example, if a critic of the Book of Abraham has no formal training in Egyptology, is that not relevant to the weight given to his conclusions?  If a critic of the Book of the Mormon who criticizes the Mesoamerican aspects to the book’s claims has no formal training in Mesoamerican studies, is that not relevant?   Interestingly, one of the most prevalent ad hominem attacks that I have seen come in this context, when critics dismiss the work of trained experts such as John Clark, Brant Gardner, and John Gee because “they are Mormon.”   It is a classic example of the ad hominem fallacy of trying to get people to ignore the actual argument due to a perceived flaw in the person who made the argument.  This is not to say that amateurs cannot and do not present reasoned arguments that must be dealt with.  In my profession, there are many people who believe they are every bit as capable of defending themselves as a trained attorney.[2]  Nevertheless, most people prefer to hire a person who has the training and field work.

Another example comes to mind: In his biography of Joseph Smith, author Dan Vogel employed Family System Theory in an attempt to understand the Mormon Prophet.  Nevertheless, Mr. Vogel is not a trained psychologist, psychiatrist or even a Licensed Clinical Social Worker.  How is that information not relevant?  And the corresponding review by NAMI employed a response from people with the relevant training who provided what I thought were materially damaging responses to the argument’s Vogel made.

My whole point here is that, in many instances, an examination of the person making the argument is appropriate.  It gives us a basis for weighing and measuring the argument being made as well as understanding the context in which the argument is made.  That is not ad hominem.

Non-LDS scholars have long realized these facts.  If (say) Vogel were to present a logical syllogism, it makes little difference whether he is trained in Family System Theory or anything else.  All that matters is the syllogism.  Unfortunately, most issues with scripture, ancient langauges, history, and all the other topics that impact “apologetics” aren’t like mathematical or logical syllogisms. One historian noted that these issues sometimes need to come to the fore if we care about the truth, even though people will get upset:

Except with very good friends, it is considered tactless and discourteous to suggest that someone’s views are a reflection of his or her background, prejudices, or psychic needs.  We stick to the reasoned arguments advanced, even if privately we think those arguments are shallow rationalizations.  The need to behave this was in scholarly discussion is obvious, as are the costs of violating the rule.  But if, as historians of an ongoing discussion, we believe that the protagonists are in fact often disingenuous in their arguments, are following hidden agendas, and are expressing  views shaped by ‘extra rational’ factors, what kind of historians would we be if we suppressed this perception?  (Of course, the perception might be wrong, but that is quite another issue.)[3]

And yet (as in the case of Palmer, above) sometimes this type of analysis is vital:

…an ad hominem argument is a device intended to divert attention from the critical examination of the substance of an argument, and to discredit that argument by dragging in irrelevant considerations having to do with the character or motives of its author.  That this is disreputable procedure is clear enough in cases where the argument itself is ‘followable’: in which those being addressed have the opportunity of addressing themselves systematically and exclusively to ‘relevant’ considerations.  The impersonal ethos of science is based on the proposition that what science offers is ‘public knowledge,’ subject to criticial examination by the scientific community.  The ‘replicable experiment’ is the prime example of this characteristic of science…. On this assumption, ad hominem arguments are surely an irrelevancy, and should be scornfully dismissed.

But, are the characteristic products of historians like this?  The historian has seen, at first hand, a great mass of evidence, often unpublished, and difficult to access.  The historian develops an interpretation of this evidence based on years of immersion in the material [critics of the Church develop their views in a much shorter period of time, and with much less profundity]—together, of course, with the perceptual apparatus and assumptions he or she brings to it.  Historians employ devices, the footnote being the most obvious example, to attain for their work something resembling ‘replicability,’ the the resemblance is not all that close.

Most historical writing is, at best, ‘semipublic’….The historian is less like the author of a logical demonstration…more like a witness to what has been found on a voyage of discovery [or in a court room].  And arguments which are illegitimate when addressed to the author of a transparently followable syllogism are quite appropriate in the case of a witness.”[4]

The same author goes on to quote a logic textbook, which tells us: “certain motives weaken our competence and our readiness to observe certain facts or to state them fairly.  Hence the existence of such motives, if such existence can be be proved in any given case, is relevant to determine the credibility of a witness.”[5]

Finally, as I noted before, I think many critics have confused sarcasm, irony and cynicism for ad hominem.  Others seem to feel that these have no place in scholarly pursuits.  I think this is wrong. A bit of well placed sarcasm can be quite effective in the context of an overall argument (conceding the fact that a response that is nothing but sarcasm isn’t very effective).   They can be used to effectively –and colorfully – point out the deficiencies in an argument.  Furthermore, while I make no claim to having read extremely wide-afield, it is my experience that virtually every form of academic writing that I have come into contact with has included sarcasm, irony and cynicism as accepted facets of the form.  To focus on these aspects, and refuse to address or even acknowledge the serious argument being made, is to commit another fallacy: the “style over substance fallacy” (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Style_over_substance_fallacy).  And, critics of the Church commit this fallacy (and others) every time they complain about, say, Dan Peterson’s sense of humor (or lack thereof) without acknowledging the serious argument he is always making.  G.K. Chesterton, a Catholic apologist with a similarly sharp wit, once observed, “Mr. McCabe thinks that I am not serious but only funny, because Mr. McCabe thinks that funny is the opposite of serious. Funny is the opposite of not funny, and of nothing else.”[6]

In fine, looking at relevant aspects of the person making the argument is not a fallacy.  In many aspects it is essential to making an informed judgment of the argument. It’s a matter of relevance. The fact that critics have to stoop to their own invocation of ad hominem and the style before substance fallacy argues that they are ill-equipped to confront the arguments being made.

[2] We call them inmates.

[3] Peter Novick, That Noble Dream: The ‘Objectivity Question’ and the American Historical Profession (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 11-12.

[4] Novick, 219-220, bold added

[5] Morris R. Cohen and Ernest Nagel, An Introduction to Logic and Scientific Method (new York, 1934), 180; cited in Novick, 221.

[6] Gilbert K Chesterton, “On Mr. McCabe and a Divine Frivolity,” Heretics (New York: John Lane company, 1905 [twelfth edition, 1919]).