For the Birthday Boy

Today is Alvin Cutler Van Orden's birthday. I'd intended (and still intend) to send him a package with three gifts. Since I got sick last week, the package is yet waiting to be assembled. In lieu of said package, I have assembled a simple cipher detailing the promised presents. I've embedded it in the absurdly forced paragraph below.

"Who enjoys bingo, war, uno, obsessive uno, DJs, and jedi-ing puzzles of risks? Alvin! Going jedi pleases, and so jump on your not-actual gift (if you can open it). Best, PBJ."

Sorry for the ridiculousness, but it seriously took me forever to come up with something into which I could embed the cipher. I also checked my journal for what I thought of Alvin back in the day. Here's what I had to say:

"Alvin is quiet, humble, intelligent, active spiritual and a great example...He's a really great guy and I've learned a lot about stretching my limits and magnifying my calling from his challenges to do push-ups, read scriptures, sing hymns, etc. He's a wonderful roommate."

Happy birthday, Alvin. Hopefully you crack the code before the present itself arrives.



P.S.- Here are a few cipher parameters that will simplify the decoding process: I/IV/I.

Canon, Doctrine, Truth and all that

I've been teaching Sunday School for the past year and half, and several of the issues raised in the discussion so far have come up repeatedly in class. I'll give my thoughts on just a couple.

1) Canon, doctrine and truth:
Millet, as Rob points out, gives a fairly simple test of what is "doctrine." Is it in the standard works? Is it in the teaching materials? Is it in recent conference talks? This is, to me, somewhat interesting. In his conception, "doctrine" is a superset of "canon" (which I take, I feel with good justification, to be the four standard works). He doesn't include (at least not explicitly) numerous other materials generated within the church like non-general conference talks (talks given at regional or stake conferences, for instance), church publication articles, books written by general authorities, Michael McLean soundtracks, and a host of other materials available from the church distribution center (with an easy to use order form sent out with your Ensign :)). He rather explicitly excludes arcane teachings, like the troublesome statements in the Journal of Discourse.

So, Millet proposes a two-tiered approach to the acceptability of teachings which I personally feel is over-simplifiedl; it's doctrine or it's not, with not much gray area in between. Perhaps he doesn't really feel this way, but believes its the simplest method of dealing with Christians unfamiliar with the various forms of church discourse, but I think it misses important points. Other Christians are very familiar with the "authoritativeness" questions; they get questioned again and again about why some verses in the Bible are "more true" than others. They also have to balance teachings of modern preachers against personal interpretations of scripture. It seems to me like approaching questions about arcane teachings of past prophets with that common framework is a better way to bridge gaps than to simply say "we don't teach that, so it isn't doctrine (even if one of our prophets once said it)."

2. Institutional versus Personal Revelation:
This builds a bit off the last point. The question often arises about where Truth lies, and how we can get at it. Rob mentions the promise, based on Sec 107 and backed up by many presidents of the church, that if you follow the majority of the twelve you will not go astray. That's comforting inasfar as it goes, and I have no intention of ever deviating from following the Apostles and Prophets. But...

Personal revelation must needs be in constant tension with institutional revelation. In theory it seems truth should be truth, regardless of how it is received. And we should always be able to pray and receive confirmation of revealed truths. Except often I've met sincere people who have struggled with contradictory revelations. Faithful members who pray and receive revelation that homosexuality is not a sin. Investigators who pray and receive revelation that the Book of Mormon is not true. And because of the primacy we give in the church to personal revelation I often have no recourse in such discussions but to bear my own testimony (that homosexuality is a sin, that the Book of Mormon is true) and assure them that somehow both things must be simultaneously true.

I could go on at length about truth and certainty and probably sneak in some Bayesian probability theory, but I won't.

3. Can truth change?
Faced with prophetic teachings about blackness and the mark of Cain or the essentiality of polygamy for exaltation or any number of other doctrines that were once widely believed by the church (including by its leaders) to be true and now are not, it seems to me that simply saying "that's not doctrine since we no longer teach it" is insufficient.

With regards to the practical aspects and policy positions of the church, I can understand how they might change. Men of African descent weren't given the Priesthood; now they are. There's no necessary contradiction between that and an unchangeable God revealing his will through Prophets if we accept that practices are often defined by the time in which we find ourselves (c.f. Word of Wisdom). I can reconcile things being "alright" at one point and "not alright" at another; their fundamental nature didn't change, but the environment surrounding them did, and the "goodness" or "badness" is inherently a factor of the interaction with the environment, not the object itself. Wow...that's way too unclear, even for me. Really I just mean that practices may change because of differences in the world where they occur, rather than with God.

But doctrinal statements aren't like practice (or, IMO they shouldn't be). I usually conceive of them as existing in a non-physical plane. So, for example, Millet's explanation that prophetic teachings of blood atonement were just overheated rhetoric originating from mid-19th century Mormon revivalism doesn't sit well with me. It cheapens doctrine, in a sense, making it instrumental rather than primal, as if the point of prophetic teachings isn't to illuminate, only to persuade to action. Maybe that's the right way to view it, but it will take me a lot of thinking and questioning before I'm willing to accept that model.

So this post makes it sound like I spend all my time questioning the fundamental epistemological soundness of the Church. I don't. Really, I think I've come to the same uneasy equilibrium as most of you. Some things don't make sense to me, but that's because of my limited perspective, and I'll just do my best to follow both the Prophets and my own conscience and hope they don't conflict too often. And if/when they do, I'll do my best to choose what's right and trust in God to deal with me justly.

If it ain't broke

I haven't read the book, but these posts have been intersting and refreshing to me, and I wanted to thank everyone for sharing.  I'd like to try to put into words my approach to handling tough gospel questions, which I'm sure bears some commonality with the approaches you all have shared.

I think I've gradually come to a position that is best described as a cross of "by their fruits you shall know them" and "if it ain't broke, don't tinker with it."  That is to say, I follow the gospel because I've seen it work countless times in so many lives--most importantly, my own.  To spend much time wrestling with peripheral church history or doctrinal issues is, for me, counter-productive.

This is not to say that I turn a blind eye to any and all hard questions, but rather to clarify that questions of historical authenticity and leadership fallibility tend not to worry me much, because my testimony of the gospel has almost nothing to do with either issue.

This perspective makes many members of the church uncomfortable.  As a church, we are brought up investing so much of our testimony in the tenet that God guides this Church directly through his prophets, that to question an apostle or even a general authority seems sacrosanct--as if we're questioning God Himself.  After all, if you start to question one thing that one prophet said, it's only natural to question other things other prophets said, including Joseph Smith.  It's a slippery and dangerous slope.

But that's where I find myself at times.  I have way too much trouble, for instance, justifying the withholding of the priesthood from blacks with some sort of hypothetical cost/benefit consideration that finally shifted 30 years ago.  Could there have been cost/benefit considerations at play in the mind of the Lord?  Yes.  But it seems equally likely to me that our prophets and apostles were/are susceptible to errors in judgment.

I don't believe that errors in judgment necessarily constitute fraud, even if an individual attributes the judgment to the Lord.  I think that all individuals, no matter who they are, have trouble differentiating sometimes between divine guidance and personal feeling.  And perhaps in some cases, the Lord achieves great works through individuals who are somewhat mistaken about what it is they are doing--e.g. is there any harm to the belief that, while Joseph Smith thought he was translating papyrus, in reality he was simply a conduit for scriptural material that the Lord wanted us to have?  Then again, I would not be surprised to find out that orthodox versions of problematic events are in fact authentic.  For example, I think there are enough plausible explanations out there that any rational person could reasonably entertain the idea that Joseph Smith actually translated the Book of Abraham.

So how do you know what is error and what is not?  Well, in many cases, it's irrelevant.  For example, how the Book of Abraham came to be does not change the real-life effect that the Book of Abraham has on me right now.  And therefore, it does not matter to me how the Book of Abraham came to be.  I do not need to have faith that the Book of Abraham is an 100% authentic translation, rather I just need to have faith in the teachings found therein.

What happens if I find myself at odds on a position that requires some sort of action (see my Prop 8 posts from last year).  Do I give the benefit of doubt to church leaders, even though my gut instinct is that they are wrong?  Or do I trust my gut and assume the leadership is wrong?  In either case, I think the willingness to admit to oneself that "the Church being true" is not synonomous with church leaders always being correct actually facilitates a very healthy response, as long as one is also willing to 1) admit as much or even more doubt in one's own opinion; and 2) not let the issue become a distraction from following more important teachings.

What would I do if I was at odds with a position that had a more personal impact?  I have, after all, core beliefs that I don't see myself ever changing.  And by core, I mean beliefs that have a real-life, personal impact, such as "thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."  I think it goes without saying that I would have to leave the Church if it ever expressly taught us not to love our neighbors.  I just have faith that I, personally, will never be at odds with the Church over those core beliefs.  But I know some people who have core beliefs that are fundamentally at odds with the Church, and I would think less of them if they stayed in the Church while having those beliefs.

Could the effect I perceive the gospel as having in my life be, as Alvin warns, a placebo effect?  I think any rational person has to admit this possibility.  Even though I have faith that the gospel isn't a placebo, it would be dishonest to myself not to leave my mind open to the possibility that my faith is misplaced.  But the anecdotal evidence seems to point to the fact that it isn't a placebo effect, and  I see no compelling reason to change my beliefs just to find out if there is a difference.

The biggest challenge to me has been figuring out how, approaching the gospel from this angle, I should approach interactions with others, both inside the church and outside.  How do I tell a new member, for instance, that of course the Book of Mormon is true, but it doesn't matter whether Joseph was really translating the Book of Abraham?  Do I just offer plausible explanations, and hope that they take one of those and run with it, or is there a way to help them see that the issue is, in reality, nothing more than a distraction?

"Finally" Getting at the Truth

I always seem to end up in conversations about my faith and its practices. Most often the discussions are amiable and uplifting. Occasionally they take a wrong turn and I or the other person take something personal and get a little defensive. When people ask me difficult to answer questions...I love it! My faith and understanding has increased and has become more deeply rooted. I seem to recognize God's hand more powerfully in the lives of people of other beliefs.

Ryan and Bro. Millet are good examples of reaching out to those of other faiths and building on common beliefs. I appreciate that aspect of this book a great deal. One of the principles that this book taught me, and which I fall back on all the time, is "what is our doctrine?" I like the limits of what our doctrine really is according to Millet...what is in our standard works, what is taught in our church curriculum today, and what is taught at general conference today. All the mysterious things that Brigham Young said or taught, that currently are not taught, are off limits to anti-Mormon's for criticism, because they are not still being taught. Does that mean Bro. Brigham was wrong? Maybe, maybe not.

Another aspect of this book I really liked was his conversation with his Baptist friend about accepting Jesus and knowing the Bible is true. How does one come to this point? Often in the church we are caught up in explaining the Holy Ghost by using the metaphors related to "feelings". My lawyer Church of Christ friend says that we crazy Mormons are just confused about our "feelings". I have stated to her that the Holy Ghost is so much more than feelings, but that our language is often limited to metaphors, and that is why we describe spiritual confirmations to others as feelings. I asked her how she came to know Jesus was her Savior. She said, "The Bible tells me so." How do you know the Bible is true? "Because there is empirical evidence that it is true." ...this from an attorney!? I tell her that I feel bad that she doesn't accept her witness of Christ as having been a personal witness and manifestation of the Holy Ghost. I have talked with other Catholic and Baptist friends who have had deep personal spiritual witnesses that Christ is their Savior. I know they really had those experiences. We LDS don't have a corner on the market for spiritual experiences...we just have the fullness of the Gospel for them to come and build upon.

I have used this book for the last couple of years as a reference tool along with many other sources like the standard works, other church publications, and even fairlds.org to help answer difficult gospel challenges. It has been richly rewarding.

responding to challenging questions about church

Hi,
I haven't been participating for awhile, sorry about that. I enjoyed reading Alvins little post on the book by Millet, which I haven't read. But I have thought about the points about difficult questions about the church. My perspective is that before delving into all the these details and weighing evidence, etc, it's useful to ask, "Can the Church be proven to be not true". I like this question. When I ask it to Mormons the answer is almost always "no". If the answer is no, then it's really no use in losing much sleep over doctrinal issues or disturbing historical facts, etc. If the answer is yes, then before you make a serious study of these things, you have some idea of what kind of fact would prove the church isn't true. I haven't been able to come up with one that is very good. One person recommended to me that if the church ever asks me to do something that is wrong or bad, then that would show it's not true. But this isn't very satisfying to me. I could be a Methodist all my life without being asked to do something wrong.

So at this point, my working hypothesis is that it's impossible to prove the church wrong, and we live in a world of faith, and a world of hope, doing the best we can. I believe that we, humanity, are waiting for something more. From my reading of the scriptures and my understanding of what science is, I believe that the strongest truth claims are those that allow themselves to be proven false when contrary evidence arises. I think this is beautifully illustrated in the story of Elijah. The sin of the priests of Baal was that their belief in their false gods could not be proven wrong, regardless of any physical evidence that Elijah was able to show. If Elijah had failed to bring the fire from heaven, then he would have less cause for condemning the priests for their unbelief. there are many examples in the scriptures in which the prophets put themselves on a limb and say effectively, "if such and such doesn't happen then you don't have to believe me." I'm thinking of Nephi and prediction of the death of the chief judge, and samuel the lamanite saying that Christ would come in 5 years.

Similar patterns hold in Science. The laws that we are most certain of are those that we know how to disprove. I know how to disprove the law of energy conservation, I just have to find one repeatable experiment where it doesn't hold. Relativity makes predictions, precision calculations that can be quantified. These can be used to predict future events with precision. These predictions can be brilliant like when somebody (Einstein I think?) predicted that relativity predicted that some astronomical event would be late by like 3 minutes or something. And he was right! Prophets in the scriptures have claimed the ability to make accurate predictions of the future, to heal people, to transport people large distances, to see into people's minds and hearts, to save and take life in large quantities, etc. Our prophets of today set a really high standard for themselves by claiming an equal footing with the prophets of the past. Today we see all of these "powers" being performed by "Godless" scientists. Many in the church would say that the scientists are inspired by God without knowing it. Maybe that's true, but if all of this great science is inspired by God it's important not to be dismissive about it. For example one should take evolution seriously, and not dismiss it as nothing. Evolution is a great example of something that does raise profound questions about God and faith and what it means to be human, but most Mormons are convinced that these questions are irrelevant to their existence, and I think this is unfortunate. Joseph Smith was a great prophet because he took the major dilemmas of the day, the really big problems, and he made sense of them, he resolved the problems for those peoplpe. How can we proselyte to the world when we refuse to even understand the questions that they are asking? How can we learn if our attitude is that "If we don't understand it, then it isn't important." This latter belief is taught quite often in church, if you listen carefully.

I've written much, and I should stop, but I'll add one more point: I've studied how scientists work and I live it, and the methods and values of science are very different from the methods of faith, as I've learned them in the church. I could write for a long time about these differences, but not here.

Also, I would like to say something about outreach, I have been attending a bible study group at a methodist church with a bunch of older men, mostly retired. Many are former academics. The discussion is frank and honest and I really have been enjoying it, learning how others think, and it has developed my faith. In some ways it is more nurturing to my faith as a Mormon than listening services at my own church. It took a lot of courage for me to get involved with this group, so if you are thinking about doing something similar, I would highly recommend it.

Thanks for reading this, and have a great day!
Ryan Larsen

Responding to Difficult Questions

With apologies to Bro. Mortensen, I'm going to start the September book discussion (on Nov. 3) before my ancient brain forgets any more.

I took a class from Robert Millet at BYU, and the one lecture I remember is when he played a radio clip of some pastor from another church. Millet thought this radio pastor had particularly insightful comments on the Mary and Martha story. I can still hear the pastor loudly proclaim, "The Master was in the house!!" My point is that Millet is sincere in his beliefs about outreach between our church and others (in case you doubted). I certainly agree that we (Mormons in general) do need to get out more.

I enjoyed the book, though I really had to force myself not to skim over large sections of the book where Millet discussed questions to which I felt I already had an answer. In fact, I read the book not seeking to see how I could answer other people's questions, but how I could answer some of my own questions. I don't think I've ever been asked truly difficult questions from non-Mormons, but I have been asked some tricky questions from Mormons and ex-Mormons.

There were a couple of questions that Millet raised that I wish he had explored further, and since he didn't I'm going to raise them here. I can't quote him exactly because I no longer have the book.

1. Why should we trust feelings/answers to prayers as a means for knowing the truth? Millet makes an excellent point about how he feels sorry for those that don't have that feeling. That knowledge without the spirit is empty. I agree. We need to feel what is right and be able to get answers. BUT, I think that's an incomplete answer.

For my job, I tell people every day about the dangers of the placebo effect. It's powerful, and people can clearly feel things because they think they're supposed to or because they want to, etc. We have many examples in early church history of false revelations. People thought they were following the spirit, but Joseph told them it was a false or evil spirit. Even today in the church I often see members feel impressed to do something they didn't want to do, and it turns out poorly.

Yes, we must have the feelings of the spirit to really know what is truth. However, our feelings can be, and often are, misinterpreted, so I guess it seems like a sandy foundation. Having had a good friend that came to church for years, had the discussions, prayed and didn't get an answer, I wish there was a good back-up plan.

2. What about the Book of Abraham and the scrolls found in a museum? Millet asserts that the scrolls found could not be the originals because they aren't long enough and don't fit the descriptions in church histories. This was the first time I heard this theory. I had been told in a BYU institute class that the scrolls found were the same scrolls that Joseph Smith had. The teacher (a BYU religion professor) said the scrolls found had some sketches of temple plans on the back. The institute teacher's theory was that the translation of the scrolls was much like Joseph Smith's translation of the Bible. It wasn't really a translation at all. The scrolls just served as something to trigger Joseph Smith to receive inspiration from the Lord. I must say that I like Millet's theory better. It certainly cleans up a lot of other questions. Any thoughts on this one way or the other?

3. How do you account for the church's changing positions and early church history? Now, I'm a bit hazy now on what Millet said on this, but I do want to bring it up as a point of discussion. Personally, I don't lose a lot of sleep over blacks and the priesthood, polygamy, and more recently, changes to the temple ceremony. All of the changes have been changes for the better. If I remember right, Millet said that none of these changes were doctrinal changes, defining doctrine as something in the standard works.

While this isn't an issue for me, it is an area where I start to get defensive. The 'Are Mormons Christians?' questions don't phase me at all, but when I get serious questions about our beliefs on polygamy, I get uncomfortable. Non-Mormons will usually drop the issue if you just explain we don't believe that any more, but my good friend that is semi-Mormon has more persistent questions about it. For example, why did Joseph Smith marry someone that was already married and why was he so secretive and why don't we teach the full truth about these things in Sunday school... Again, I don't lose sleep over these things, but I do think there are a lot of issues that don't have clean answers. I think this book can make you think there are good answers to every question, but if there are, I haven't heard them all yet.

Doug, my county didn't have your book, but fortunately, I also have a library card for the county next door and I'll be picking up the audio book on Thursday. I'm looking forward to it.