|
Printer
Friendly Version - opens in separate window
Michael R Ash, born a Mormon, is a retail manager
in Utah and a 'factotum' for the Mormon apologist organisation
FAIR. In a recent article in the unofficial online Mormon magazine
Meridian, he addressed the question, Why do Some People Assail
the Church? The article can be found here.
It gives us an interesting insight into two factors concerning
Mormon apologetics:
First, apologetics, as we would recognise
apologetics, is a recent development for Mormons. In the past
Mormons took a more declamatory approach and, although a kind
of reasoned defence was used, it was rather simplistic and didn't
seriously address itself to the questions raised by critics. Mormons
felt that the truth was self-evident; critics were just being
obtuse and popular books like Legrand Richards' A Marvelous
Work and a Wonder were sufficiently engaging. Richards' book
would never do today and Mormons are now engaging with their critics
in a way that was unheard of years ago.
Second, it helps us
understand the mindset that can look at compelling criticisms
of Mormon doctrine and still dismiss it as malicious, born of
ignorance and misguided.
The question is put, "Are all critics or disbelievers modern-day anti-Mormons?" and I was, as you would imagine, very interested in the answer:
"Certainly not. Disagreeing with LDS doctrine does
not make someone an anti-Mormon, but there are certain critics who would
like to see the demise of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
How can we differentiate between disagreeing nonbelievers and anti-Mormons?
In some ways it's difficult to set parameters to categorize such critics."
It is my experience, from both inside and outside the Mormon Church, that parameters seem so difficult to set because anyone who asks the most reasonable question is almost invariably treated with suspicion and branded "anti-Mormon", or someone who has been "got at by anti-Mormons". This is the default position of every Mormon, a sort of "either you're for us or against us" approach.
The writer goes on to observe:
"Anti-Mormons often disregard the facts, current
research, and the sacred beliefs of Latter-day Saints. They frequently
engage in techniques that are aimed at destroying the faith of tender-testimonied
Latter-day Saints or investigators, and are not usually interested in
dialogue or reaching the truth."
I find this charge interesting since the rest of the article seems to demonstrate a singular lack of interest on the part of Mormons in fact, current research or dialogue. Take that famous quote from Spencer Kimball:
"Apostasy usually begins with question and doubt
and criticism. It is a retrograding and devolutionary process. The seeds
of doubt are planted by unscrupulous or misguided people, and seldom
directed against the doctrine at first, but more often against the leaders."
- Teachings of Spencer W Kimball, Pub. Bookcraft, 1982.
Do You Really Want the Facts?
Here we have a clear denunciation of the very factors that help us address
and judge the facts of which Michael Ash speaks with enthusiasm. Questions
that seek to find the facts, doubt that helps us pursue those
questions instead of settling for whatever you're told, and criticism
that helps others examine their own faith, either strengthening it,
or changing it for the better.
Of course, Kimball casts those who seek facts and probe for data as unscrupulous or misguided people. This is typical of the Mormon approach to critics and is mirrored in the article itself:
"Why do these detractors want to see the Church
fall? There are a variety of reasons. Some are bitter because they've
been offended by members of the Church or because they have seen the
human-side of LDS leaders. Others may attack the Church out of pride
- pride in their supposed intelligence; they no longer need the "crutch"
of religion. Others may recognize that they know more about early LDS
history than is generally taught in Sunday School, Seminary, or Institute
and thus come to believe that they also know more about spiritual things
than the Prophets.
"Such people often assume that they have the inside "scoop" to the real
LDS faith and that only the naïve' or uninformed could believe the stories
told in Church. When pride replaces humility, criticism of others -
especially leaders - is often a consort...Others resort to attacking
the Church to hide their own sins."
It must be a great comfort for Mormons uniformly to be able to dismiss their critics as, "unscrupulous and misguided, bitter, proud, and sinful". It certainly beats having to answer your critics with intelligent arguments, facts, archaeological data, and a reasoned defence. Also interesting is the insight we gain into the Mormon approach to plain facts. The writer observes:
"There are also some members who leave the Church
simply because they no longer believe. Such people generally do not
have a spiritual testimony and they are not able to reconcile what they
see as difficult issues."
A clear dichotomy is presented here between "spiritual testimony", based entirely on subjective experience, and "difficult issues" that someone "sees" and with which someone might struggle because of objective evidence. Referring to "false Christs", the writer asks:
"What types of "signs and wonders" might such a
prophet have up his sleeve? Perhaps this might entail clever sounding
arguments, or scientific or empirical data that might be used (in my
view incorrectly) in a way that suggests that Christ is not real, or
that the Restored Gospel is false."
So we begin with the charge that, "Anti-Mormons
often disregard the facts, current research, and the sacred beliefs
of Latter-day Saints", and end with a warning that "clever
sounding arguments, or scientific or empirical data" is very
likely the sign of the apostasy Mormons are warned against.
Now the
question we must ask is, "Do you really want the facts?" Do you want
to tackle the "difficult issues", as modern Mormon apologists would
lead us to believe, honestly and with a humility that says, "If I am
wrong then I am wrong"? Or is the Mormon church true despite facts,
empirical evidence, results of current research, and clever sounding
arguments that might, indeed, be right?
Of course, there are things to which we adhere simply on the basis of
faith alone. Of course, facts don't prove all the big issues such as
those things to do with the spiritual realm. However, I find Mormons
all too readily put into this category of "spiritual testimony" anything
and everything that doesn't fit their picture of the world. Facts are
facts only when they serve the Mormon cause, it seems. When they don't,
they become "clever sounding arguments" designed to engender apostasy.
The list of people who have been censured or excommunicated for daring
to face these facts and pronounce their findings is growing all the
time. The real question is, does the Mormon Church "disregard the
facts, current research, and the sacred beliefs" of those who have
allowed those facts to lead them away from the Latter-day Saints into
a greater light? If the "apostate" is following the facts and walking
into the light, shouldn't the Mormon apologist stop name-calling and
at least give the reasoned arguments of critics a FAIR hearing?
This article first appeared in the Winter 2004/5 Reachout Quarterly
|
