My friend Sam called me yesterday and he came right to the point. \u201cI\u2019ve been reading your report of our conversation last week, and I\u2019ve also been reading some of the responses, and I think that there is some confusion that I would like to clear up.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cWhat do you mean?\u201d I asked.<\/p>\n
\u201cWell, you remember that I took the view that even in the worst case hypothetical scenario\u2013 even if it could somehow be proven that Joseph Smith\u2019s claims were fraudulent– there would still be good reason for people to remain faithful members of the church. The church\u2019s teachings about God and Christ and salvation\u2013 and how to live\u2013 would still be true. The fellowship and service would still be uplifting. And so forth.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cYes, I remember.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cWell, a common refrain among the commenters was that the historical claims are our basis for believing what the church teaches, so if those claims were disproven we\u2019d no longer have any reason to put any trust in those teachings, or in the church.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThe commenters raised a lot of different points. But I think that was one of them, yes.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cAnd I think that\u2019s a mistake. I think it reflects a fundamentally mistaken view of how and why we believe.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cHow so?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cHere\u2019s one way of putting the point. The picture in that objection is of a prophet\u2013 Elijah, Joseph Smith, Thomas S. Monson– who comes proffering his prophetic credentials and also a message containing some particular content. \u2018I\u2019m a prophet\u2013 here are my credentials– and I\u2019m here to proclaim message XYZ.\u2019 And if the credentials don\u2019t check out, then we have no reason to believe the content of the message.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cOkay. I hadn\u2019t though of it that way, exactly, but I take your point. And this is a mistake because . . . why?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cBecause in reality, that just isn\u2019t how it works. It\u2019s not like someone shows up preaching some strange message but he flashes his prophetic credentials and the rest of us think, \u2018Well, who would have thunk it?– but it appears that he\u2019s a prophet\u2013 his credentials check out– so I guess we have to accept what he says, even though it seems pretty bizarre.\u2019 That\u2019s not how these things work.<\/p>\n
\u201cNo, it\u2019s the other way around. The contents are<\/em> the credentials. We don\u2019t believe the content because the credentials are compelling. We accept the prophetic credentials because we believe the content\u2013 because we sense that the content is true and of God.<\/p>\n \u201cIf the commenters would reflect, they would realize this. Aren\u2019t people always saying (and didn\u2019t Jesus himself say) that \u2018By their fruits ye shall know them\u2019? This is inspired counsel, and it assumes that we already or perhaps innately have some sense of what is true and good, and that we recognize God\u2019s messengers by ascertaining that what they teach lines up with what we already understand to be true.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cWell, I don\u2019t know about that,\u201d I said. \u201cIf we already know what is true and good, why do we need the prophet anyway? All he will do is confirm what we already know. What\u2019s the good of that?\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cI understand the objection,\u201d Sam replied. \u201cBut it\u2019s superficial. Think about this realistically. You have notions about what is true and good. You do.\u00a0 You get these from your upbringing, your experiences, your own thinking. From reading scriptures. From prayer and inspiration. But you also know that your understanding is limited, and dim. You see through a glass darkly. Then you hear someone teaching what you already know is true, but teaching it confidently and clearly. Or maybe you were only half-conscious of the truth, and you hear it preached, and you think, \u2018Ah, yes! I\u2019ve known that all along, sort of, but I didn\u2019t really become conscious of it till now.\u2019 And you go on to conclude: \u2018This is someone I can trust. Someone who seems to be in tune with the truth, and with God, and who can fortify and fill out what I understand but very imperfectly. This is someone I can follow with confidence.\u2019<\/p>\n \u201cLet me try to make this more concrete. I\u2019ll use my own experience as the example. I listen to General Conference, say, and (except when I\u2019m feeling proud or ornery going in) I think, \u2018These men are teaching the Gospel\u2013 as I listen, I feel that what they are saying is true– and they\u2019re teaching it clearly and with conviction. With authority. These are people that it would be good to follow.\u2019<\/p>\n \u201cThen I look around the world, and I see a lot of darkness, and confusion, and error. Yes, there are bright spots\u2013 other teachers who also seem to be in tune with God and the Gospel. Just for myself\u2013 don\u2019t laugh\u2013 I\u2019ll mention two: Billy Graham, John Paul II, and an Argentine preacher who I sometimes hear on Christian radio–\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThat\u2019s three,\u201d I interrupted. \u201cYou said two.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cSorry. You know I\u2019ve never been good at higher math. But I learn from people like these\u2013 and I\u2019m happy to do so. And yet, meaning no disrespect, it also seems to me that most of the Christian churches today have serious problems that can compromise or cloud their message. Sexual scandals. Doctrinal disputes. A tendency just to go along with and bless whatever worldly trends we see around us. And I don\u2019t know of a place I can go to\u2013 an institution, I mean– and be as confident of hearing essential Gospel truths as I can with General Conference.<\/p>\n \u201cSo to me, the content is the credential. The content of what the church is and teaches today<\/em>, I mean: I don\u2019t have to make judgments about nineteenth century teachings about polygamy or whatever. I can remain agnostic about those matters.<\/p>\n “So, why isn\u2019t this good enough? Why can\u2019t a conviction that the church today is teaching and practicing God\u2019s will stand on its own without having to depend on claims about what did or didn\u2019t happen two centuries ago? Why would I think \u2018You know, this church seems to be a source of living and essential Gospel truth, but the received account of how it came to be this way has some questionable elements, so I\u2019m going to reject it\u2019? What sense would that make?<\/p>\n \u201cAnd, for that matter, why does anything have to depend on claims of exclusivity? I\u2019ve already acknowledged a) that I find inspiration and Gospel truth in non-church sources (non-LDS sources) and b) that I don\u2019t have as much confidence in other institutional sources. But suppose there is<\/em> some other institution\u2013 maybe even one I don\u2019t know about\u2013 that reliably teaches Gospel truths. So much the better: Other people are also being blessed with the Gospel.\u00a0 Why should that possibility reduce the commitment I feel to this<\/em> church\u2013 to a church that I happen to have found and that I\u2019m confident is a source of truth, and a sort of embodiment of Gospel truth?\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cWell,\u201d I responded, \u201cyou know that some people say they don\u2019t<\/em> find current church teachings attractive. They think the church is out of date on LGBT matters, or women and the priesthood, or other things. They listen to the conference talks and feel alienated, not uplifted. What you\u2019ve just told me won\u2019t have much appeal for them.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cYou\u2019re right; it won\u2019t,\u201d Sam said. \u201cWith those people, we\u2019d have to have a whole other kind of conversation. Although do you seriously think those people are going to be drawn into commitment by the historical claims? And in any case, you recall that this whole discussion began with you and me saying it\u2019s sad when people who think the church is good, and who may even love it, become disaffected because of difficulties with historical claims about Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham, and such. Those are the people and that\u2019s the mistake I\u2019ve been talking about.\u201d<\/p>\n I had some questions I wanted to ask. Mainly, I wondered whether in focusing so much on the present church, Sam wasn\u2019t overlooking our need to fit our beliefs into an overarching story\u2013 a story that runs backwards and forwards in time and that hangs together and makes sense to us. This need was manifest, I suspect, in the commenters\u2019 objection that Sam was responding to. But I was already late for a class, so I told Sam I would think about what he had said, and perhaps convey it on to others who might be interested.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" My friend Sam called me yesterday and he came right to the point. \u201cI\u2019ve been reading your report of our conversation last week, and I\u2019ve also been reading some of the responses, and I think that there is some confusion that I would like to clear up.\u201d \u201cWhat do you mean?\u201d I asked. \u201cWell, you remember that I took the view that even in the worst case hypothetical scenario\u2013 even if it could somehow be proven that Joseph Smith\u2019s claims were fraudulent– there would still be good reason for people to remain faithful members of the church. The church\u2019s teachings about God and Christ and salvation\u2013 and how to live\u2013 would still be true. The fellowship and service would still be uplifting. And so forth.\u201d \u201cYes, I remember.\u201d \u201cWell, a common refrain among the commenters was that the historical claims are our basis for believing what the church teaches, so if those claims were disproven we\u2019d no longer have any reason to put any trust in those teachings, or in the church.\u201d \u201cThe commenters raised a lot of different points. But I think that was one of them, yes.\u201d \u201cAnd I think that\u2019s a mistake. I think it reflects a […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":134,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[55],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-39730","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news-politics"],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39730","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/134"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=39730"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39730\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":39774,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39730\/revisions\/39774"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=39730"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=39730"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=39730"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}