Glenn's thoughts on Millet's book

I really enjoyed the posts from you guys. I considered your comments and had drafted some responses to them, but that draft disappeared. If I find it someday I may post it. For now I will share with you things that I took note of during the first part of the book. Before I do so, let me just say that I was surprised when I started into the book, how general and broadly applicable the ideas were. I was expected Bro. Millet to say, "Now, when you get asked this by your non-member co-worker, this is what you should say." It's true that the book does contain some of that in later chapters, some of which I found interesting, some of which I have already forgotten. The most useful thing in the book, in my opinion, is that he suggests how to answer a question rather than trying to give us a script to use when answering a question. Teach them correct principles ...

Here are some quotes about faith and testimony that resonate with me, and are of value to me, especially since burying myself in research:

"A testimony is not something you either have or do not have. Rather, it is an impression of the Spirit about the truthfulness of eternal things, an inner awareness that ranges along a spiritual continuum from a simple peaceful feeling to a perfect knowledge" - pg 30

"I believe because of the epiphanies, small and large, that have intersected my path -- small discrete moments of grace when I have sensed a kind of superinteding presence outside of myself. I believe because these moments ... are too precious to discard, and I choose not to trivialize them by reducing them to rational explanation. I believe because, for me, the alternative to belief is far too daunting." - pg 34


I finished Complications this morning. I will read through Doug's post and try to get something equally worthwhile up here soon.

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.

"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 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.