Mormon FAIR-Cast

Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – 2 Corinthians 8–13

Mon, 18 Sep 2023 21:03:39 +0200

Evangelical Questions: Why do you believe in Levels of Heaven?

by Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC

Welcome back to Come Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions. My name is Jennifer Roach and today we’re going to talk about the 3 kingdoms of Heaven. As you know we’re going through the Come Follow Me readings and addressing common questions that Evangelicals ask about our faith as we go along. Our purpose here is not to fuel debate but to help you understand where your Evangelical friends and family are coming from so that you can have better conversations with them, and perhaps even be able to offer them a bit of our faith in a way they can understand.

Quick announcement for you first: This coming weekend, Friday Sept 22 – Saturday Sept 23 is an online only conference put on by FAIR and the focus is evidence for the Book of Mormon. I am not presenting at this conference but I do get to help out a bit with introductions and questions which I am thrilled to death over because it means I get to hang out with some very smart people all day long. The Friday evening presentation is none other than Richard Bushman. On Saturday there are a number of speakers including Stephen Smoot – he’s the most up-to-date scholar on issues surrounding the Book of Abraham; a presentation by my 2 favorite Spencers – Spencer Marsh and Spencer Kraus – which I think has been jokingly titled, “Revealing the One True Spencer” but in reality is about 2 Nephi 19:1, which is rather a puzzling verse. Several good talks on archeology challenges and ancient artifacts. I’ll be there live with the speakers, but the conference is online only and you can stream it on the FAIR YouTube channel.

Okay, we’re going to talk about the levels of Heaven. Our jumping-off verse is 2 Corinthians 12:2:

I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows.

And I’ve noticed that Latter-day Saints sometimes are confused about why Evangelicals don’t accept this idea, it’s in the Bible after all. I want to talk through how and why Evangelicals see this verse in 2 Corinthians the way they do, and then we’ll talk about some intersections with our faith and where you might go in conversation about this topic.

I don’t have research to point to that backs this up, but my sense is that if you asked most Evangelicals what Paul means by “the 3rd Heaven” they wouldn’t even understand the question. It’s considered an obscure verse that they generally don’t spend a lot of time on so the average Evangelical person might not even know it’s in scripture. But, for those who do, they have a very concrete (meaning physical) explanation for it – rather than a spiritual one. Which brings up a bigger question: Why do we – why does anyone – take some verses literally and some spiritually? Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints use both techniques, but at different times and for different reasons. The cynical explanation is that the other group, the group that is opposite of you, does this at their own convenience only to fit their doctrine in. But I think it’s more complex than that. Both Latter-day Saints and Evangelicals (as well as every other denominational group or religion out there) are heavily influenced by a set of interpretative rules called hermeneutics. The hermeneutic you use – here the choices are physical or spiritual, but there are lots of others – determines how you will interpret a passage. Let me make an analogy to help you understand.

In English, there is a proper order for adjectives in a sentence. An adjective is a descriptive word and if you string them together in the wrong order your sentence won’t sound right. However, if you ask almost any native English speaker to name that order, they can’t do it. I can’t do it. I had to look the order up for this talk to make sure I got it right – it’s a rule I follow, but don’t even know I’m following it. I just know it sounds right. The order is Quantity, Quality, Size, Age, Shape, Color Proper adjective (often nationality, other place of origin), and Purpose. A classic example of getting this order correct is the sentence, “I love that really big old green antique car.” If you’re a native speaker, this sounds right to your ears while, “I love that antique, green, old, big car,” just doesn’t sound right. You follow this rule without even knowing the rule exists. And hermeneutics are like this. Knowing when to read literally or physically and when to read spiritually is a rule that you follow without even knowing there is a rule. And Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints use different rules. So when they interpret something, it doesn’t sound quite right to our ears – and vice versa.

What are the Evangelical rules for the interpretation of a verse like this one in 2 Cor? They interpret this verse literally by saying that the first heaven refers to the atmospheric where the birds live (and yes, this is how it’s normally phrased.). The second heaven is the area of the stars and planets. The third heaven is the dwelling place of God and Heaven. But why?

So, I think the tendency here is for Latter-day Saints to claim that Evangelicals get it wrong because they don’t have the Spirit and therefore can’t interpret correctly. But that’s not a very satisfying answer and it probably breeds more us-them than is good for anyone. So let me offer a couple different ways to understand what’s happening here.

First, you remember from past episodes that the Evangelical movement is not even 100 years old, and it really came of age alongside the Baby Boomers. It is very much a post-WW2 American invention. The cultural mix at the time was encouraging everyone to move into the modern world with all its conveniences. And they didn’t want to be seen as old fuddy-duddies. If you’re close to my age, our family lines probably play out in a similar fashion. My mother was born in the first wave of the baby boom, but her parents were both born in the 19-teens, and all 4 of her grandparents were born in the 1800’s. The Evangelical movement rose up with these baby boomers whose parents and grandparents seemed to be from an entirely different era. So they wanted an entirely different version of church than what their parents and grandparents had which was now out of fashion for being too fundamentalist and strict. They found what they were looking for in the Evangelical movement. The Evangelicals were a reaction to the fundamentalists who came before them.

But like with all reactionary movements, the very thing they’re reacting against often gets smuggled right in any way, and in this case, we’re talking about the temptation to interpret in an overly literal way. They will say things like, “The Bible is the literal word of God.” At face value, what that sentence means is that God’s message to use is found in this book. But what that gets morphed into is something like: everything in the Bible should be taken literally. This leaves you in a weird place if you read in Luke that Jesus says he gathers us like baby chicks under his wings because the rule of “everything should be taken literally” falls apart unless you want to regard Christ as some kind of giant cosmic chicken. So what has happened with Evangelicals is that their interpretative rule is something like: in order to take scripture seriously you have to take it literally whenever possible – and when it is not possible you must find the spiritual meaning instead. In other words, if it can be literal – it should be taken literally. Evangelicals will get a little squirmy if you try to say this plainly. When they ask, “Do you take the Bible literally?” what they’re really asking is, “Do you think the Bible is actually true?” The word “literal” here is morphing in meaning – it’s okay, words do that within the context of a culture. But it leaves Evangelicals with this sense of the literal meaning has to come first.

So, when they look at our verse about the third Heaven in 2 Corinthians their first impulse is to look for a literal meaning. Remember, these rules are often as invisible to people as the English rules of which order adjectives go in – everyone follows the rule, even though most people don’t know it exists. And, Evangelicals have a second interpretation rule here that reinforces the first: If another verse in the Bible mentions the same thing, it should be used to enhance the meaning of the verse in question. So, Evangelicals interpret the 1st Heaven to be where the atmosphere and the birds are and they back that up with a verse like Deut 28:12, “The Lord will open for you His good storehouse, the heavens, to give rain to your land in its season.” And they see this as a perfectly valid explanation. Paul mentions a 3rd Heaven, implying that there are 1st and 2nd Heavens. Can we interpret this literally? Yes, and we have scriptures that do so, a literal interpretation works and therefore should be used.

Latter-day Saints have our own history of why things have been interpreted the way they have. And we face the same reality that Evangelicals do – many of the rules we use for interpretation are rather invisible to us, we just know what sounds right. My experience has been – and I’m sure some of you have had different experiences and I’d love to read about them in the comments – but my experience has been that the hermeneutics Latter-day Saints most often use is something called an emendatory (amendatory) hermeneutic which just means that we have been given additional information or clarity on what the Bible is talking about through either the Book of Mormon or our modern Prophets. In general, we would look at a verse like this one about the 3rd Heaven and easily be able to quote all kinds of modern revelation that help us know what “the 3rd Heaven” actually means. The challenge for Latter-day Saints comes in 2 directions. Either we’re overly quick to jump to, “this part of the Bible is clearly not translated correctly and I don’t have to do any study or work to try and tease out some meaning.” Or, we over-relate a Biblical passage to modern revelation – sometimes making connections that the Prophet himself (whichever one speaking) did not make. Latter-day Saints can also go a little too heavy on literal interpretation just like Evangelicals can simply because we’re impacted by history here too – the early half of the 20th century was dominated by more literal/fundamentalist thinking in our church too.

Okay, so how do you talk about this concept with your Evangelical friends? I have 2 thoughts.

First, Jesus doens’t use the phrase “levels of Heaven” or “Kingdoms of Heaven” but he does talk about varying degrees of reward in Heaven and makes it clear that certain things we do here on Earth will bring more reward, and certain things less reward. For example: Matthew 5 Jesus says there is a great reward for those who are persecuted. Meaning that the people who did not have to face persecution will not be rewarded in that way. Jesus is offering a compensatory reward for suffering faithfully for his name. In the very next chapter Jesus talks about how some folks really want to draw attention to the fact that they’re giving to the poor – Jesus tells us that these people have their reward in full already and this behavior will not get them further reward in Heaven. Romans 2 Paul tells us God will give to every man based on his deeds. In 1 Cor 3 Paul teaches that our works will be judged – some will burn up, and some will endure – those who produce works that endure will be rewarded. All this to say, pointing out that these passages (and many others) describe different degrees of reward and that might open up the conversation really nicely.

My second thought on how to talk with Evangelicals about this: Read the CS Lewis book, “The Great Divorce.” It’s fiction and a rather easy read. The audio book is only about 3 hours. Lewis was not a member of our faith, and at times actually had some rather snarky things to say about our faith, but in The Great Divorce, he sees the same truth we’re talking about. Here is the basic plot: It’s set in the afterlife and people from the lower kingdoms (here represented by a large, noisy city) are given a chance to go on a bus ride to the higher kingdoms. In the book the higher kingdoms are thought of as being closer to God – the countryside is closer to God than the city – and the great mountain is where God lives but its rather steep and hard to get to. However, God reigns over all 3 kingdoms. You might think that when the people from the lower kingdom get a glimpse of the country side and its fresh air that they might awaken their desire to progress. But they don’t. They complain that the color of the grass is such a vivid green it hurts their eyes and feels “too real” when they put their feet on it. They complain that living in the countryside requires too much of them and they want to get back on the bus and go home where it’s comfortable. The point here is that the people who spent their lives preparing to live closer to God are the ones who are best able to adapt to the higher kingdoms. You can’t climb the great mountain without some training. But in the book, progression is possible if you want it. Most people don’t. Lewis never intended this as a pro-LDS book by any means – and yet he is getting at some of the very things we’re saying about 3 Heavens. I actually read this book long before I investigated the church and it was an important thing for me to have on board in my brain as I learned how to adjust to a different way of thinking about eternity.

I hope this episode helps you think through some ways of how to understand your Evangelical friends and how to talk with them about the beautiful doctrine we have about Heaven in a way that they can actually hear.

Next week we’re talking about the phrase, “another gospel” in Galatians. Looking forward to seeing you then.

More Come, Follow Me resources here.

Jennifer Roach earned a Master of Divinity from The Seattle School of Theology and Psychology, and a Master of Counseling from Argosy University. Before her conversion to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints she was an ordained minister in the Anglican church. Her own experience of sexual abuse from a pastor during her teen years led her to care deeply about issues of abuse in faith communities.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – 2 Corinthians 8–13 appeared first on FAIR.

By Study and Faith – Episode 7: Confidence and Bias

Sun, 17 Sep 2023 22:38:16 +0200

by Zachary Wright

Introduction

Imagine for yourself, for a moment, that a critic of the church stumbles across some quotes about the Adam-God theory. “Brigham Young taught this, and seeing as he was a prophet, this must be what Mormons believe!” they reason to themselves. They post these quotes on social media, proclaiming that “Mormons believe that Adam was God the Father! Your leaders taught it, it’s what you profess to believe!” However, what this critic did not know is that as early as 1897, we have records of church leaders stating that Brigham “no doubt expressed his personal opinion or views upon the subject,” supporting the idea that members of the church are under no obligation to support the notion that Adam was God the Father (1). The critic doesn’t retreat from their position though, doubling down on how members of the church believe it. At the end of the day, their bias led them to an incorrect conclusion about what members of the church believe.

For those who are well acquainted with criticisms of the church, I’m sure that you can recall with ease similar instances wherein bias led people to incorrect conclusions about our beliefs. However, unlike most of the previous cognitive biases we’ve discussed, the bias outlined above can’t necessarily be learned by simply taking time to think about it. It’s a little different, and has been classified by many researchers as being called The Dunning-Kruger Effect, which is what we’ll be discussing today. Critical thinkers need to be aware of cognitive biases due to their possible impact on our daily decision-making and behavior, thus affecting our ability to arrive at conclusions and solve problems. So today, we’re going to be going over the Dunning-Kruger effect, it’s quasi-reverse bias (often referred to as Imposter Syndrome), and afterwards we’ll talk about what we can do to combat these biases. Let’s get into it.

How Confidence Relates to Bias

Now, I need to lay some groundwork for the rest of the article to make sense. It’s understood that confidence is related to bias in a few different ways. For example, the Overconfidence Bias is understood to be “the tendency people have to be more confident in their own abilities.” (2) This is demonstrated in a plethora of studies, such as one wherein it was shown that younger children rate their memory recall ability more highly than their older peers.(3) This makes sense…we talked about how dominant emotions (such as high confidence) are associated with cognitive biases in our previous episode. As we’ll soon see, however, the connection between confidence and bias goes a little deeper than that.

So, a group of researchers set up a study where they had participants determine whether groups of dots moved left or right. Sometimes the dots moved more noticeably in a given direction, and other times, the dots moved less noticeably in a given direction. After the participants made decisions about what direction the groups of dots were moving, they were shown evidence that either confirmed their suspicions (when they guessed right), or went contrary to their suspicions (when they guessed wrong). They then used magnetoencephalography, which is just a fancy method of scanning brain activity, to see how areas of the brain related to confidence behaved throughout this process. At the end of the study, the researchers stated the following:

As hypothesized, we found that after high confidence (vs. low confidence) decisions, accumulation of neural evidence was facilitated if it was confirmatory, but largely abolished if it was disconfirmatory…In other words, our MEG analysis reveals that high confidence leads to post-decision accumulation becoming “blind” to disconfirmatory evidence. (4)

To translate that, it basically means that when the participants were super confident in their decisions, it led them to be blinded to evidence that went against their decisions. If that sounds familiar, it should, because in our last episode this phenomena is described as being confirmation bias. This study was super useful in being able to demonstrate how our confidence can relate to bias in ways that we may not expect, and it’s important to retain this in mind as we proceed talking about more confidence based biases.

However, I do want to caution against any inference that confidence is a bad thing, or that confidence indicates weakness in a position. As we talked about in our article about epistemology, there are ways to be epistemically confident in something that leave us less susceptible to errors. We don’t have to associate confidence with bad ideas, and in my opinion, we shouldn’t! As we’ll discuss more later, a lack of confidence can lead to just as many, if not more problems in the long run. Even so, critical thinkers should be aware of how certain biases related to confidence can affect our ability to make decisions, and solve problems. As we’ll soon see, the effects of these kinds of biases can be long-lasting and far-reaching.

The Confidence Biases at Large

To begin explaining more concretely how bias and confidence may be related, an excellent place to start is to explore the Dunning-Kruger Effect. The Dunning-Kruger Effect earned its name from a pair of psychologists named David Dunning and Justin Kruger. They published a very famous paper in 1999 wherein they tested people on their social and intellectual skills. Later, they tested the participants again, asking them to rate themselves on how well they actually did. What did they find? They found that those who scored on the bottom percentile rated themselves as being much more competent than they actually were (5). Since that time, psychologists have referred to this effect as being the Dunning-Kruger effect, and it’s been a well-studied phenomenon ever since.

Those who are familiar with my previous article are familiar with the aspects that make up a cognitive bias. While each cognitive bias is different, it usually stems from people focusing on drawing patterns, prioritizing the information that correlates with what we already know, focusing on dominant/impactful data, and ignoring seemingly irrelevant information (6). Unfortunately for those who fall victim to the Dunning-Kruger effect, one could make a convincing argument that they are victims to all four of these heuristics in seemingly negative ways. First, they recognize the pattern that they’ve been able to accomplish tasks such as “deductive reasoning” before. However, there’s no guarantee that because they’ve successfully done something before, that they’ll successfully do it again. Next, they draw on the information that they already know, prioritizing this information, seemingly at the expense of other information. However, this leads to other problems, seeing as the information that they are seemingly missing is often important, and may complicate the simplicity of the answers they’re looking for. This becomes increasingly apparent as time goes on, but by the time that they realize it, a lot of the effects have already had long-lasting consequences.

To explain why this is, I first need to explain a common way that the Dunning-Kruger effect manifests itself. Let’s use myself as a hypothetical example. Arguably, I happen to be one of the few people right now doing a series on critical thinking in regards to LDS theology and history. Let’s say that I suddenly get a lot of popularity for my discussion about critical thinking. I suddenly gain thousands upon thousands of views on my videos, and chart a lot of internet traffic on my articles. People start reaching out to me, asking me questions about obscure aspects of LDS history, which I may know less about. I can tell you about the things I’ve studied (Epistemology, Evaluating sources, Logic, etc), but I’m less equipped to tell you about every single pioneer story ever recorded. However, because I want to be successful, and because I want to make people happy, I start exploring other topics that I have less experience in. Consequently, I begin saying more things that are wrong; but because I was right about some things, I have the confidence to keep persisting in my incorrect ideas. However, any attempts to correct my incorrect ideas would fall on deaf ears, because I would be far too inexperienced to recognize how I was wrong. This is the Dunning-Kruger effect in its purest form, and they (Dunning and Kruger) reported the principle in the following way:

Those with limited knowledge in a domain suffer a dual burden: Not only do they reach mistaken conclusions and make regrettable errors, but their incompetence robs them of the ability to realize it. (7)

In the formal business world, this idea is referred to as The Peter Principle, which indicates that managers will “prioritize current job performance in promotion decisions at the expense of other observable characteristics that better predict managerial performance.” (8) In other words, the managers look at what the employees do, and assume that their current performance will predict how well they will perform in a position that, in reality, would be too much for them. It’s events like this that often lead to the Dunning-Kruger effect, where the person being promoted (either formally, like in a business, or informally, such as on social media platforms), will suddenly begin to feel confident about their abilities, despite the often obvious lack of ability they may have in a given area. The bias here is evident. We’re recognizing patterns of our success. We focus on the dominant and impactful ideas that agree with our own ideas. We also ignore or downplay the issues that challenge our own ideas. After all, if we were right before, who’s to say that we won’t be right again? However, if we put that into syllogistic form, it falls apart rather quickly.

P1: I was able to solve/answer X problem using X method
P2: I am presented with Y problem
Conclusion: I will be able to solve Y problem using X method

The premises, in this instance, do not support the conclusion, and I hope you can do some research to find out what fallacy this is ;). Proficiency in one area of study does not guarantee proficiency in another. I’m sure that the reader can imagine a plethora of examples of the Dunning-Kruger effect being present at work, in politics, and of course, religious discussion.

Now, I certainly hope that I’ve stated things that are accurate and useful to critical thinkers, but regardless of how well-intentioned I may be, this does not change the fact that the internet as a whole is a breeding ground for the Dunning-Kruger effect in ways that have been previously unprecedented. Normal, ordinary people with little to no formal training in a given field, are suddenly given power and influence over hundreds, if not thousands of people. They can be proclaiming utter nonsense about a given topic, and not a single person will realize that they have no idea what they’re talking about. This is why critical thinking skills are as important as they are. We need to be able to parse through information ourselves and recognize the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments at play. If we don’t, then it becomes all the easier for us to fall victim to cognitive biases, and otherwise fallacious thinking.

Now, I will introduce one caveat here, just to cover my bases. There is a bit of controversy right now regarding whether or not the Dunning-Kruger effect is actually a psychological bias. There are some writers and researchers now who are advocating for the idea that the Dunning-Kruger effect is more statistical in nature. (9) The question as to whether or not this is a psychological issue or a statistical issue is important to consider. However, the authors of these articles don’t deny that these behavioral patterns exist. Instead, they attribute it to other factors, such as the Overconfidence bias. Whatever the underlying cause is (whether that be psychological, statistical, or otherwise), I think these patterns of behavior and thought are worth mentioning and analyzing.

Flipping the script

We’ve talked about how people who are low-achieving tend to rate themselves as being much more proficient than how they actually are. However, that still leaves us with the question of how people who are proficient in their field of study view themselves. Now, you’d initially think that people who are proficient in their fields would likewise rate themselves as being significantly better than their peers in their profession. However, we actually find the opposite to be true. High-achieving, competent people often rate themselves as being less competent than their peers. (11) It’s my understanding that this doesn’t happen all the time, but one study estimated that it happens to about 70% of the population at least once in their lives. (12) Some authors note that this is often cited in association with Dunning and Kruger, though those two psychologists never expressly talk about it in their studies. (13) Even so, I do think that exploring this issue may prove to be useful.

The imposter effect, also known as Imposter Syndrome, was initially described by Pauline Rose Clance and Suzanne Imes, wherein it described that those who are extremely competent tend to downplay their abilities, feeling like they are less competent than they actually are. (14) While this pair of researchers initially assumed that this phenomenon was exclusive to women, most researchers accept the idea that this effect is not exclusive to women. (15) Some authors argue that it affects women more than men, while others suggest that Imposter Syndrome simply manifests differently among men and women. (16) Regardless, this confidence problem inherent within the imposter effect contributes to the Dunning-Kruger effect, due to how the people who are less competent end up being given a larger platform due to the Peter Principle. As demonstrated earlier, this can lead to a lot of problems within a short period of time.

The imposter effect can have some very negative effects on people and their performance. As you can imagine, it’s associated with higher rates of anxiety, depression. (17) Those feelings are serious, and can cause problems in a variety of aspects in our lives, but something just as problematic is how the imposter effect can negatively impact critical thinkers in their quest to solve problems. How so? Well, let’s say that you have a brand new foreign-speaking missionary who’s afraid to speak up, because their trainer appears much more competent than them in terms of speaking, or even understanding the lesson content. How about a bishop who resists a calling to become a stake president because he’s afraid that others will “discover his inadequacy.” Examples of similar phenomena can be found outside of LDS culture, but you can probably already see the principle at play. This can inhibit critical thinkers from making decisions that are genuinely going to solve problems.

That prompts the question though, how do we overcome the Dunning-Kruger effect and Imposter Syndrome? Well, I think that the ways I mentioned in the last article are worth noting. Slowing down, looking at things from a different perspective, and getting a multitude of opinions all may help decrease the effects and longevity of these effects. However, I think it serves us to examine this from a more theological standpoint: Both of these problems are resolved in a similar way. True humility is the answer here. To explain why, we first need to explore what humility is.

Humility, in our theological context, is described as “recognizing our dependence on God.” (18) I totally agree with that, and of course, an obvious application here is that humility would allow people to more easily admit when they don’t know something, hampering the effects of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Why? Because suddenly our eternal value doesn’t come from what we know, it comes from who we are. Humility, when channeled in an appropriate way, can allow us to more easily admit when we are wrong. If we really think about this, the imposter effect comes from basing our inherent value on the things we can do, instead of basing our value on who we are in relationship to God.

What about Imposter Syndrome though? Surely that must be different, right? Well, when we recognize that one of the most important aspects of our identity is that we are children of God, (19) it becomes much easier to recognize that we are not better than anyone else. However, the opposite is also true: no one is inherently better than us. Instead of feeling like we’re letting people down, those who are truly humble recognize that even if there are imperfections in what they do, their imperfections do not make them less than other people. Humility, in an ironic twist, decreases the fear that comes from failure. When we realize that our true worth comes from our inherent, unalienable relationship with God, we open the door to true, enduring happiness.

Now, I’m not blind to the fact that humility exists in places outside the church. General Christians, Atheists, as well as members of the church are all able to experience this kind of humility (though arguably for different reasons). However, I bring this idea up for a few reasons. First, obviously, I want to show how confidence and bias relate to each other, and likewise show a way that I think we can mitigate the effects of unhealthy confidence. I want to show one of many ways of how looking at things from different perspectives can be useful. This is the epitome of critical thinking: the idea that we can bring together data of different types, analyze it, and then use it to help us solve problems. This pattern is something that I hope everyone would try to emulate. You don’t even need to be a member of the church to appreciate how this method of data analysis can be useful.

In conclusion, I think that there are some important things to consider when we talk about how confidence can impact bias. First, we need to know some of the mechanics behind how bias and confidence are related. We also need to know some documented biases that relate to confidence, and we need to know how to fix them. Again, I want to reiterate that certainty isn’t a bad thing, but like most things, it should be employed after careful consideration and restraint. As we do so, it’ll be easier for us to arrive at correct conclusions, and eventually become the kinds of thinkers and believers God wants us to be.

References:

https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/80389221-debe-4168-89a6-9e2bd7709a5c/0/369; The quote part comes from Joseph F. Smith, a contemporary to Brigham Young, and a future prophet and leader of the church. While this quote was said after Brigham died, other leaders, such as Orson Pratt, publicly denounced the doctrine while Brigham was still alive. Later, after meeting with Brigham, Pratt apologized. Pratt continued thereon to allow Brigham to have his opinion uninhibited, but stated that he would not teach the doctrine himself (link here). Orson was counseled by the brethren on the matter, but was never once disciplined by the church for this position. There are also points wherein Brigham himself was less dogmatic about the Adam-God theory, and you can read more about that here.
https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/overconfidence-bias
Piehlmaier D. M. (2020). Overconfidence Among Young Decision-Makers: Assessing the Effectiveness of a Video Intervention and the Role of Gender, Age, Feedback, and Repetition. Scientific reports, 10(1), 3984. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-61078-z
Rollwage, M., Loosen, A., Hauser, T.U. et al. Confidence drives a neural confirmation bias. Nat Commun 11, 2634 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-16278-6
Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of personality and social psychology, 77(6), 1121–1134. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.77.6.1121
Korteling, J. E., Brouwer, A. M., & Toet, A. (2018). A Neural Network Framework for Cognitive Bias. Frontiers in psychology, 9, 1561. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01561
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/dunning-kruger-effect
https://economics.harvard.edu/files/economics/files/ms28914.pdf
https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/critical-thinking/dunning-kruger-effect-probably-not-real?fbclid=IwAR13aDSHXbp-X5vsEoOOxLLsQbKNpxt77CnIqto5TllpIdoRehSOK4cRW1Q
https://dictionary.apa.org/impostor-phenomenon; see also https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0022-3514.77.6.1121
Gravois, J. (2007). You’re not fooling anyone. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 54(11), A1. Retrieved November 5, 2008 (link here, though there is a paywall to the full article)
Magnus, J. R., & Peresetsky, A. A. (2022). A Statistical Explanation of the Dunning-Kruger Effect. Frontiers in psychology, 13, 840180. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.840180; This is another one of those articles that tries to use statistics to explain the Dunning-Kruger effect.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/neuroscience-in-everyday-life/202308/the-history-of-imposter-syndrome
Feigofsky S. (2022). Imposter Syndrome. HeartRhythm case reports, 8(12), 861–862. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrcr.2022.11.001 (if that link doesn’t work, try this one).
https://online.utpb.edu/about-us/articles/psychology/exploring-imposter-syndrome-and-gender; See also https://www.forbes.com/sites/lucianapaulise/2023/03/08/75-of-women-executives-experience-imposter-syndrome-in-the-workplace/?sh=2da5b9576899; The first talks about how women experience it more than men, the latter says otherwise.
https://www.apa.org/gradpsych/2013/11/fraud; Some sources claim that this affects those who are considered demographic minorities differently than those who are not considered demographic minorities. For example, one study suggests that for African Americans “impostor feelings are a stronger factor in mental health than perceived discrimination and possibly minority status stress” (link here). As you can see, imposter syndrome can have repercussions that can affect a lot of discourse about minority populations.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/gs/humble-humility?lang=eng
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/broadcasts/worldwide-devotional-for-young-adults/2022/05/12nelson?lang=eng

Further Study:

“Why ignorance fails to recognize itself” Featuring David Dunning; This is pretty interesting, because one of the original researchers for which the “Dunning-Kruger” effect was named, explains more about his findings. Definitely interesting to listen to.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1989/04/beware-of-pride?lang=eng; This talk by Ezra Taft Benson shows how pride can be manifested in a few different ways, and is combatted most effectively by humility.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK585058: This gives a solid outline of the findings behind imposter syndrome, and likewise explores ways in which it manifests.

Zachary Wright was born in American Fork, UT. He served his mission speaking Spanish in North Carolina and the Dominican Republic. He currently attends BYU studying psychology, but loves writing, and studying LDS theology and history. His biggest desire is to help other people bring them closer to each other, and ultimately bring people closer to God.

The post By Study and Faith – Episode 7: Confidence and Bias appeared first on FAIR.

Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – 2 Corinthians 1–7

Mon, 11 Sep 2023 20:12:46 +0200

Evangelical Questions: Obedient in Everything

by Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC

Welcome back to Come Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions. My name is Jennifer Roach and today we’re going to talk about obedience. As you know we’re going through the Come Follow Me readings and addressing common questions that Evangelicals ask about our faith as we go along. Our purpose here is not to fuel debate but to help you understand where your Evangelical friends and family are coming from so that you can have better conversations with them, and perhaps even be able to offer them a bit of our faith in a way they can understand.

I do love to tell you about things that are going on just in case you don’t know. This coming weekend, Sept 15-16, is a conference in Salt Lake, at the Conference Center and it’s regarding the completion of the Joseph Smith Papers. The conference is free and you can come in person, or watch online. Each session will be focused on a different aspect of the world during the time of Joseph Smith. Which is really cool because you can think about what the social and economic forces are at play behind the scenes of the beginning of the church. So there’s a session on what it was like for women and families during that era, or what race, ethnicity, and politics were like then. There’s a session on how they handled conflict and one on finances. And lots more. If you’re into historical stuff like I am, you will be sure to enjoy it.

Okay, we’re going to talk about the concept of obedience. And our jumping-off verse is 2 Corinthians 2:9 which says:

Another reason I wrote you was to see if you would stand the test and be obedient in everything.

So, Paul is writing to the church in Corinth. What we call 2 Cor is thought to actually be his 4th letter to them, and as you can see in the letter, things are not exactly going well. They’ve gotten themselves into some very precarious situations, and Paul is trying to help them out. But he’s also apparently a bit worried that they’re not going to listen – as evidenced by the fact that this is his 4th letter and things have gotten worse over time. So he starts out the letter with a reminder about obedience. Which leads us to an interesting question….What does the phrase, “you should be obedient in everything” bring up for Evangelicals that’s different than what it brings up for Latter-day Saints? In church we sing, “We love to obey thy command.” And that’s good. I actually really like that song. But Evangelicals get a bit weird around this sentiment and it’s not because they don’t want to obey the commands of God. They do. They interpret them a bit differently than we do, but on the whole, they are interested in obeying God. The problem, which actually is illustrated rather well in this song, is that those “commands” often come through human leaders. That song, “We Thank Thee oh God For a Prophet,” is praise directed toward God for a variety of different blessings, including the blessing of having a Prophet.

We’ve touched on this briefly in the past, but there are some variations on this topic. They’re not as much based on the different denominations or groups, but on where you fall in the authority structure of that group. Here’s an example: The average pew-sitting Evangelical will likely never be in the position to promise obedience to a human leader. They do have membership agreements that they agree to when joining a certain church, and we’ll get to that in a moment. But in general, they are assuaged into obedience based on what the individual or family will get out of that obedience. For example, the church starts some new program they want everyone to participate in. The church leadership will use various marketing techniques to help the people see the need for this thing they’re offering and then willingly participate. That’s mostly what it’s like for the pew-sitting person, no matter what version of Evangelicalism they’re following. But you will see far more variety regarding how leaders in those churches are dealt with.

Latter-day Saints, I think you’ve vaguely familiar with this, but I’ll go over it just to be sure. Church leadership in the Evangelical world is almost all done by paid employees. Those employees fall into 3 categories. First category, ordained pastoral staff. These are people who went to Divinity School and have been through an ordination process. This is a long-term career kind of position. They intend to spend their life serving a group of people by teaching them. When you think of someone who says, “I’m a pastor,” this is what you’re thinking of. Second category, non-ordained pastoral staff. These are folks who maybe are in the process of finishing their pastoral education or those for whom that level of education was simply out of reach. They might have a title like, “youth pastor” or “children’s pastor” I was a children’s pastor for a lot of years at a great church in California. And this is the category I was in. Sometimes people in this category are called “youth director” instead of “youth pastor” depending on the rules of the church, but they function identically. The third category are folks who have been hired because they possess a skill that the church needs in order to run – someone to work on printed materials; someone to keep the grounds; someone to keep the books, etc. Mostly these are people who could be doing the same work somewhere else, but work for a church instead. Our church hires lots and lots of people in these categories – people who make the website and LDS Tools work; people who know how to manage a warehouse, etc. But in theory, these people could take their skills and work for any other employer as well. So, in talking about obedience, Category 2 (non-ordained pastoral staff) and 3 (skilled professionals) are mostly compelled to obedience in their work environment by human resources, or an employee manual, or a board that oversees their work. But the Category 1 people, those who have a formal education and are ordained, might also have a different level of requirement for obedience. In the denomination where I was ordained the ordination service included what is called the Oath of Conformity and the Oath of Canonical Obedience which is a lot of words just to say: You promise to do what the Bishop tells you to do. But my experience is on one end of the spectrum – not every ordained leader is asked to take an oath for conformity and obedience. And in some places, the pastor almost ordains himself and decides to start a church all on his own, and he only answers to himself. So you can see, sometimes obedience is required at higher levels, but that is a tiny, tiny percentage of people. Most Evangelicals won’t even come across any kind of wording like that unless they’re paying attention to the process of how people get ordained. But what Evangelicals have been frequently asked to do is sign a membership agreement. But some interesting exceptions have popped up and there’s history here.

A membership agreement is traditionally exactly what it sounds like: an individual signs something to say they agree with the doctrine of a particular church, that document probably says something about the expectation that they participate in the life of the church and that they obey the scriptures. There would probably be something about what might happen if a person becomes apostate. Eventually – think 1960s – 1980s – those begun to be seen as too legalistic, too controlling. Churches mostly moved away from specifics into something that just sort of signs the person up for membership without there being any requirements – or even more likely, they did away with membership all together.

Around the year 2000, many Evangelical churches started to think about church membership differently. There was a huge resurgence of Calvinist or Reformed churches during that era. The vibe of these churches was very slick, urban, young. In the past on this show I’ve told you the history of Mars Hill Church in Seattle – which at one point was the largest church in America – before it blew up in spectacular fashion. But MH is the epitome of this time in Evangelical history. These are the folks who wanted to say – with good motives, I think – but it’s going to sound really weird to your Latter-day Saint ears….they wanted to say that God hates humans and thinks we’re disgusting worms, but the faithful response to this is to kind of take it like a man. Any softening of that was seen as weak faith. These Reformed churches revitalized the practice of church membership – and then they took it to ridiculous lengths.

Instead of being a simple statement between a church and a member about their beliefs, it started to morph into a legal document or contract. What had happened was churches that were trying to practice some form of church discipline – that is keeping members accountable for their behavior – were getting sued by the people they were trying to discipline for defamation of character. Let me read you a quote from an attorney familiar with the story,

When a church begins the process of exercising formal, biblical discipline, it will often receive a letter from the member’s attorney threatening to sue the church for defamation, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Many church leaders who would not back down have found themselves forced into court, subjected to days of humiliating cross-examination, and shocked to see juries penalize their churches with six-figure damages awards. This trend was triggered by the Guinn case in 1984, which resulted in a $400,000 judgment against a church and its leaders, and has continued to grow for twenty-five years.

So Evangelical churches have, more and more, reframed the idea of church membership. On one side they’ve completely given up the idea and said, “we just want you to come and learn and be with us – but we make no demands of obedience on you.” OR, they’ve gone the other direction and morphed their membership agreement into a legal contract, sometimes even requiring members to sign a non-disclosure agreement regarding all church issues. I’d don’t have a study to point to that says this, but my own estimate is that probably 60% of churches have very low-key membership, or none at all. There are no expectations placed on people who attend. They’re treated like customers that the staff needs to keep happy. In your town if you have some slick megachurch that goes by the name,”The Rock Church” or “The Well” or “Elevation Church” this is very likely the model they’re using – church members are customers and customer service is the highest priority. And probably 40% that are trying some kind of membership agreement, which may or may not include phrasing about obedience. The ones that do contain words about obedience are probably leaning toward the legal contract side of things.

There are rare churches that have done extra sneaky things. Mars Hill in Seattle, for example, drafted their membership agreement so that in all reality, the church only had 3 members. Despite having 40,000 (or something) attending on Sundays, those people were not members. The membership contract they signed said they are members in name only, and have no right to anything – the 3 members of the church (the senior pastor and his top 2 board members) are the ultimate authority and the ones who must be obeyed above all else, and the only ones who will decide what happens, and attendees have no ability to influence that at all ever. There are other similar things. So, frankly, Evangelicals are not stupid people – they hear about stories like this and get suspicious that membership is a trick, and revert back to their hyper-independence of wanting a relationship to just be between them and God where no one else has the right to say anything about obedience.

So, all that to say, the word “obedience” is really loaded for Evangelicals. It’s either become a dirty word and been eliminated except in the most basic sense of obeying scripture – or it’s been hyped up into the realm of contracts and law. It’s probably going to take another 20 years, probably more, before they can find a sensible stance on it again.

Let’s briefly contrast this with what we believe in our church. We came to this Earth, in part, to prove our willingness to obey a Father that we can no longer see. It’s Abraham 3:25 “And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them.” We covenant to obey the Law of Obedience, but it’s not blind obedience. At one point in my investigation of the church I had a true fear that having a Prophet actually meant that some guy I never knew could tell me what to do, and I’d have no choice but to do it. But the Law of Obedience is not God legally forcing us to comply with his dominance, it is him inviting us to come unto him. And then we get to make any choice we want – all those choices have consequences. There are no consequence-free choices in any aspect of life. But our obedience is not compelled – it is seen as a voluntary act of faith. We see – at least on our best days – that obedience is something that leads to happiness. Evangelicals have had a rough go on this topic and that word is going to bring up a lot of division (some of which we haven’t even covered here) and it’s not a word most of them would associate with “happiness.” I highly recommend to you the Youtube channel called Temple Light where my friend Jasmine talks through all things Temple in a direct way. Her episode called, “The Law of Obedience” would be a great video to watch after this one (and she’s more efficient than I am and can make her point in 10 min where it takes me 25) But that video will help you to think about why obedience has been played out in our church the way it has.

Next week we’re talking about the 3 levels of Heaven and why Evangelicals think we’re crazy to think such a thing, and how they think about it instead. See you then.

More Come, Follow Me resources here.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – 2 Corinthians 1–7 appeared first on FAIR.

Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – 1 Corinthians 14–16

Tue, 05 Sep 2023 22:52:22 +0200

Evangelical Questions: Baptism for the Dead (Part 2)

by Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC

Welcome back to Come Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions. My name is Jennifer Roach and today we’re going to talk about baptism for the dead. As you know we’re going through the Come Follow Me readings and addressing common questions that Evangelicals ask about our faith as we go along. Our purpose here is not to fuel debate but to help you understand where your Evangelical friends and family are coming from so that you can have better conversations with them, and perhaps even be able to offer them a bit of our faith in a way they can understand.

Since we talk about Come Follow Me stuff on this channel I do want to make you aware of a new resource for next year. Dr. Grant Hardy has a new book, The Annotated Book of Mormon. And it is delicious. It’s much closer to a study Bible, but with the Book of Mormon, than I’ve seen before. It includes the entire text of the BoM but has Hardy’s notes embedded on the same page – at least in the physical book. There is a Kindle edition, but it makes the book much harder to use because you have to click about 4 times to actually see the footnotes and get back to your page. The notes are the whole point of this book. And you can just access those much easier in the physical form. I teach Gospel Doctrine in my ward and picked this up to help me prepare for next year. It’s very good.

One other resources you should know about that is coming up. FAIR is hosting an online-only conference specifically focused on just the Book of Mormon. Richard Bushman will be presenting along with many others. Details are available here.

Okay, We talked about baptism for the dead on a past episode in a more general way, but today we’ll get down to some specifics of why this one bothers Evangelicals so much. We’ll use 1 Cor 15:29-32 as our jumping-off point:

Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf? Why are we in danger every hour? I protest, brothers, by my pride in you, which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die every day! What do I gain if, humanly speaking, I fought with beasts at Ephesus? If the dead are not raised, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.”

So, Evangelicals have an interesting dilemma with this verse about baptism for the dead. Evangelicals generally have a view of the Bible called inerrancy – this means that they see the Bible as being free from error. So, here they have a verse talking about baptism for the dead, they believe the Bible is without error, but they won’t accept the idea of baptism for the dead. But they have to figure out some way to explain this verse. I’m going to lay out the most popular arguments for you as best as I can.

One way they deal with this is to basically say, “Who knows?” One Evangelical leader says it this way, “The phrase ‘baptism for the dead’ is so obscure and perplexing, the meaning so uncertain, and the variety of interpretations so numerous that it seems wise to say it seems impossible to know what the phrase means.” And in one sense, that’s a fair answer – if you don’t know what something means you should say so.

A slightly more sophisticated explanation goes like this: The baptism Paul is using “dead” here in a metaphorical sense. He’s not talking about actual dead people, but rather those who are “dead in sin.” Baptism for the dead is then re-cast as just regular baptism. Another possible option that they put on the table is really a rather odd one, and you have to torture the sentence structure a bit to make it work. But this argument says that “baptism for the dead” actually means “baptism because of the dead.” The idea being that those who had already died had strong testimonies and they were still inspiring currently alive people to get baptized themselves. It doesn’t really work in the structure of the argument, but it’s one of the ways they talk about this. A slight variation on this is that Paul is talking about the martyrs who bravely faced death in the 1st century and were inspiring others to be faithful to Christ.

A slightly less tortured explanation says that the dead who were being baptized for had already decided to trust in Christ, they had just not been baptized yet. So after they die, their friends or family symbolically get baptized for them – but it’s more like a family member finishing a mountain hike on behalf of a loved one who died while trying to complete that hike. Everyone knows that this kind of “on behalf of” isn’t really the person finishing it – it’s just a comforting ritual for the people who are still alive.

The final argument that they use is something like: there is one mention of this practice one time in the Bible so its not enough to build a doctrine on. And they’re partly right, this passage is the only time it is mentioned in the Bible. But the Bible is not the only history we have access to.
1 Cor was written about 55 AD – fast forward to 393 AD (350 years later – longer than the United States has been a country) and it’s still being practiced. No new Bible texts are being written at this time, so we don’t have that, but we do have writings of all kinds from the churches in various locations. We’ll look at one of them: Egypt. We call the Christians there Coptic Christians. The word ‘Coptic’ is derived from the Greek word that means “Egyptian.”

It was Hugh Nibley who put much of this work together initially. He traces through the Coptic writings and shows dozens of Coptic writings talking about baptism for the dead. But eventually other Christians radically distance themselves from the practice. How did this all happen?

In the early Christian world there are lots of competing ideas in various places and their method for deciding who was correct happened through a series of formal councils. Some of these were considered major councils – where there would have been leaders representing all the different areas where faith was being practiced. But some of them were minor councils, and not everyone attended. One such council was called, “The fourth canon of the Synod of Hippo,” it was held in 393AD and in that council, they declared, “The Eucharist shall not be given to dead bodies, nor baptism conferred upon them.” The ruling was confirmed four years later in the sixth canon of the Third Council of Carthage. However, the Coptic Christians were not represented at either council, so they didn’t feel particularly bound to the decisions being made there. Nibly complies all kinds of references to baptism for the dead in their church. Eventually, the Coptic Church split away from the Roman Church in 451, just 50 or so years after this event. It’s not the only reason they split off, but it’s in the mix.

All this to say, Evangelicals use a wide variety of arguments to try to make that verse mean something other than what it means. However, if you asked most of them why they think baptism for the dead is wrong you will probably get something like: Baptism isn’t necessary, only faith is necessary. They tend to think that baptism – even of the living – is just a nice symbolic way of expressing that you belong to Christ. Kind of like finishing the hike where a deceased relative died is a nice symbolic way to help them finish their journey. Most of the time they’re not just rejecting baptism for the dead, they’re side-lining all baptism, even for the living. At best, it’s a nice thing, but it’s not required to be a Christian. At worst it’s an insult to Christ because it’s saying that something needs to be added to his work on the cross.

And I think a lot of Latter-day Saints get stuck here because it’s hard to understand why they see it they way they do. I want to suggest one way to talk about why baptism is so important to our faith just straight out of the Bible. We have a lot of great verses about baptism in our other scriptures – but those are scriptures Evangelicals wont accept, so they might not get you very far. But in the Bible we get this great conversation on baptism in 1 Peter 3. Peter makes the argument that baptism is like Noah’s ark. He says, “After being made alive, [that is Christ] he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits [understood as people who have died]— to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” Peter then goes on to say, just a couple verses later in Chapter 4, “For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead.” It’s easy for the modern-reader to make hard lines between chapters, but Paul didn’t write in chapters – those were added later. Take Peter’s argument as a whole and we get something like: Christ wanted even the dead to be saved, baptism is how this happens, and for this reason the gospel is preached to the dead. You can’t separate faith and baptism as only belonging to the living here. Your Evangelical friends or family members might not immediately jump up and accept the idea after this, but it does move the conversation into a wider collection of verses in the New Testament – which is something that helps Evangelicals feel like you are taking scripture seriously.

Okay, that’s all I have for you today. Come back next week and we’ll talk some more.

More Come, Follow Me resources here.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – 1 Corinthians 14–16 appeared first on FAIR.

By Study and Faith – Episode 6: Cognitive Biases

Mon, 04 Sep 2023 05:59:57 +0200

by Zachary Wright

Introduction

Someone I know, who is a very vocal LGBTQ+ advocate, once got into an argument with me about concepts behind gender. I did everything I could to understand where they were coming from, seeing as this is a complex topic with differing perspectives. However, they were trying to convince me (among other things) that gender is a social construct. Having studied the issue, I pushed against their ideas, arguing that gender is more complicated than that and it certainly isn’t a mere social construct. However, despite my best efforts, my research and perspectives fell on deaf ears. Instead, my friend seemed to cling to the ideas of the people she agreed with. I’ll be sure to go over LGBTQ+ perspectives another day. However, my purpose in telling this story is to show an example of what researchers and psychologists call cognitive bias, which we’ll discuss today.

A few episodes ago, I explained logical fallacies – errors during logical reasoning – that can lead to incorrect conclusions. Today, we’ll be talking about the equivalent of that, but in regards to psychological bias that we sometimes employ. Cognitive biases are “errors in thinking that affect people’s decision-making in virtually every situation” (1). Unlike logical fallacies, cognitive biases are negative brain processes (usually coming from intuition) that can affect our thoughts and lead us to wrong conclusions. In other words, logical fallacies relate to arguments in the way that cognitive biases relate to intuitive brain processes. Critical thinkers must recognize cognitive biases in their thinking in order to more objectively analyze the data they interact with and make more informed decisions. Today, we’ll be going over where cognitive biases come from, explore some examples of cognitive biases, and then explore some principles that can help us avoid them. Let’s take a look.

Heuristics: The Brain’s “Easy Way Out”

Before we explore examples of cognitive biases, we must first understand where they come from. Most documented cognitive biases come from “mental shortcuts” in our minds. Psychologists call these shortcuts “heuristics.” One group of researchers described heuristics in the following way:

A heuristic is a mental shortcut that allows an individual to make a decision, pass judgment, or solve a problem quickly and with minimal mental effort. While heuristics can reduce the burden of decision-making and free up limited cognitive resources, they can also be costly when they lead individuals to miss critical information or act on unjust biases. (2)

Heuristics help us make decisions and arrive at conclusions easily and quickly. Heuristics take information that seems familiar and draws a connection to something we’ve observed in the past. These shortcuts often lead to good results… except when they don’t.

How heuristics can sometimes be misleading can be shown in some basic examples. For instance, consider this video below:

If you’re like me, you initially see a series of dots moving around in a circle. However, that’s not REALLY what’s going on. It’s a series of points lighting up and growing dimmer in a specific pattern. Our brains provide the illusion that it’s a circular-moving line of dots. This example is one of many optical illusions that employ heuristics (3). Another example of a heuristic is the “inattentional blindness” phenomenon. Here’s another video example of a cognitive bias stemming from a heuristic (4).

In both instances, our brains are either making connections based on information that isn’t present or ignoring information that is present. The accepted psychological theory states these intuitive (and I use that term very deliberately in light of my previous article) heuristics came from evolutionary processes and natural selection (5). In other words, we’ve inherited instincts from our ancestors that protected us, enhancing our chances of survival. This detail will be important later.

It almost goes without saying that this power of heuristics is nothing short of incredible, and one thing that I do want to stress here is that pattern recognition isn’t a bad thing. I’ll be discussing how drawing inappropriate patterns can lead us to jump to conclusions, but not all heuristically-based decisions are bad ones. One pair of researchers noted that “for many decisions, the assumptions of rational models are not met, and it is an empirical (after the fact) rather than an a priori (before the fact) issue how well cognitive heuristics function in an uncertain world” (6, parentheses added). In other words, we often don’t know how well our heuristically-based decisions worked until after the fact. However, they sometimes have unintended consequences that can cause problems in our thinking, as we’ll soon see.

Cognitive Bias: Bad Processes, Worse Outcomes

There are multiple types of Cognitive Biases, each with observable patterns, chiefly focusing on drawing patterns, prioritizing the information that correlates with what we already know, focusing on dominant/impactful data, and ignoring seemingly irrelevant information (7). I’ll be sure to link a more comprehensive list of cognitive biases below, as we won’t be able to discuss each one today. However, we’ll cover some of the most important ones today, which may help outline some principles to help overcome cognitive biases.

The Anchoring Bias is “the common human tendency to rely too heavily on the first piece of information offered (the “anchor”) when making decisions” (8). When we see information and don’t critically think about it, we tend to allow that source to color how we see other sources of information. For example, imagine someone learning from their parents that “the Mormons are just a cult.” From then on, they cling to that information, allowing it to color how they discuss the church with the missionaries. The problem with this kind of heuristic is evident: It inhibits valuable analysis and thought. It hyper-prioritizes information we already know at the expense of additional information that may relate to the issue.

The Fundamental Attribution Error is the “tendency for people to over-emphasize dispositional or personality-based explanations for behaviors observed in others while under-emphasizing the situational explanations.” (9). In other words, we tend to associate certain attributes as being a part of personality rather than just being due to the surrounding circumstances. An example of this is found in the hypothetical example of Member #1 and Member #2. Member #2 is in a hurry and comes across as rude and impatient to Member #1. Member #1 is offended at his impatience and then classifies Member #2 as an impatient person. In reality, he’s in a hurry to get home to take care of his sick family. As you can see, the situation was mostly governing Member #2’s behavior, not necessarily his personality as a whole. Our heuristics focus on the dominant information in front of us and jump to conclusions as a result.

The Availability Bias indicates “The more available and relevant information there is, the more likely the event is judged to be” (10). Put another way, we tend to prioritize more available information, even if it doesn’t tell the complete story. For instance, there is a lot more critical information about the church than positive information about the church in places such as social media, where people talk about bad experiences they had in the church. That information is often more accessible, and more advertised, than information about how members of the church end up being more generous (11), more pro-social (12), and have overall higher well-being (13) than most other populations of people. This isn’t to say that it’s a contest. However, it goes to show that there is evidence to go against the idea that church members aren’t happy, but it’s less available, so fewer people outside the church know about it. This bias manifests from the intuition’s dismissal of seemingly absent or irrelevant information.

The Bias blind-spot Bias states “that most people believe they are less biased than their peers” (14). In other words, we’re often able to point out other people’s biases more easily than notice our own biases. Consider these statements (based on actual statements by critics)

“You can get unbiased information about the church from books like Under the Banner of Heaven by Jon Krakauer”
“You can get the REAL Mormon history from *Insert critic here*”

The problem with these statements comes from appealing to an idea of purity that doesn’t really exist. There is no such thing as “unbiased” sources. As you can see, it’s easier for people to ignore bias in favor of what they believe, because our mental heuristics tend to lean in favor of the information we already know.

Confirmation Bias is characterized by “seeking or interpreting of evidence in ways that are partial to existing beliefs” (15). This can also be described as only looking for things that support your opinion. Examples of this can be found in critics of the church only associating with people who agree with their assessments about church history while ignoring or dismissing organizations such as FAIR. This, however, is problematic seeing as it once again prioritizes what people already believe at the expense of data that contradicts it. This bias is prevalent (even among members), so watch for it.

The Framing Bias “refers to the observation that the manner in which data is presented can affect decision making” (16). The way that information is initially presented to us can affect how we process that information and can lead us to incorrect conclusions (i.e. we make a decision based on how the issue was framed). For example, “You belong to a manipulative cult” differs greatly from “You belong to a high-demand religion.” (Lots of high demand groups exist, whether they be secular like the Navy Seals, or religious such as nuns, etc.) This heuristic pulls on the idea that our brains focus on dominant, impactful data. “Cult” is a very charged word often used with a negative connotation, so hearing it leads to conclusions that may or may not be accurate. After all, depending on how you use the word, you could describe all religions as cults.

The Hindsight Bias is “the tendency, after an event has occurred, to overestimate the extent to which the outcome could have been foreseen.” (17). This one is a little more well-known through the phrase “Hindsight is 20/20”, but its status as a cognitive bias is well-deserved. This is often used against prophets and the mistakes they make. It may be easier for us to say “How could Brigham Young have said X thing, isn’t it obvious that wasn’t true!?” However, this just shows our bias…we have more information than Brigham Young did, and we’ve been able to draw patterns and make connections in ways that Brigham Young may not have been able to. However, in such discussions, we have to remember that we are all human, we all make mistakes. I try to be as charitable to people (past or present) as I imagine Jesus would be charitable towards me during Judgement Day.

Loss/Regret Aversion Bias was put by one researcher as “an expression of fear” (18). Fear of what? Well, fear of regret, pain, and loss. This can manifest itself in a few different ways. Perhaps a member is scared to take a serious look at church history because they’re afraid of losing their testimony. Perhaps a critic of the church is scared of regretting their decision to leave the church, and so they double down on their criticisms. These fears, even if somewhat justified, can impede our ability to understand the world around us. Our brains tend to focus on dominant information and – let’s be honest with ourselves – we remember our failures. Our mistakes/failures present themselves as very dominant information in our minds (19). Keep this in mind as you’re making decisions.

The Stereotyping Bias is probably more familiar to most people. A more technical definition of “stereotype” is “[the] category-based beliefs about a group that also involve affective–evaluative loading and behavioral tendencies” (20). In other words, we put people with certain characteristics in a category in our minds, based on patterns we see. For example, a critic might say something like “Mormons are raised to be bigoted and judgemental.” Among other things, this is a stereotype placed on us by other people (21). However, this bias comes from people’s tendency to over correlate data, that is, it’s easy for us to categorize other people into “being a certain way,” sometimes even if we don’t realize it.

Finally, in a similar vein, we have the In-group Bias, which is described as the willingness of members of a group to “treat their own group superior than others” (22). In other words, we’re willing to hold those we don’t like to a higher standard than those we do like. For example, I’ve seen instances where critics of church tend to give the benefit of the doubt to other critics, but not with those who defend the church. When members of the church didn’t know something, it’s because we’re “ignorant,” but you’d be hard-pressed to find a member of that same community who would call another critic “ignorant.” You’re far more likely to find them saying that the lay-members are ignorant than you are to find them saying that a member of their own ranks is ignorant. Again, this kind of practice goes back to how people focus on dominant information, and for many people who have left the church, there are a lot of criticisms that are dominant in their minds.

Now, before I move on, I’d like to make one disclaimer: I am not saying that those who have left the church are more susceptible to cognitive biases than those who have not left the church. With just as much ease, I can find several instances where members of the church employ the same kinds of cognitive errors. However, I do think that these examples of cognitive biases can demonstrate some of the ways that cognitive biases can affect how we interpret information, and consequently affect how members and non-members can be treated in negative ways. It will always be in our best interest to avoid unnecessarily ostracizing other people. See if you can identify cognitive biases in yourself, make note of which ones tend to cause you the most amount of trouble, and see if you can find ways to correct them. As you’ll soon see, the first step to being able to combat cognitive biases is to identify them, and I hope that these examples can help you do that.

How to improve

That prompts the question: How can we avoid cognitive biases? There are a lot of sources out there that you can find that provide insights as to how you can prevent (or at least diminish) cognitive biases from affecting your life. However, we won’t be able to go over all of them today, and even if I could, the ways that those practices can be applied vary from person to person. Instead, I’ll cover a few principles that I think can help mitigate the effects of cognitive biases in our lives. Hopefully that will provide insight as to what you can do to reduce the effect of cognitive biases, at least a little bit.

Right off the bat, it’s helpful to slow down the decision making process when possible. As mentioned before, heuristics are basically “mental shortcuts” that help us make decisions quickly without spending too much time and energy thinking about it. However, if we don’t need to make decisions quickly, then there’s no reason to take the shortcut. Take some time to do research, and to “study it out in your mind” (23). By taking more time, you’ll be more likely to avoid impulsive decisions. If you’re able to, allow your intuition to be supported by other epistemic sources such as reason.

So, what should we do while we’re taking this “time out,” so to speak? Before we can answer that, let’s take a step back for a moment. We know that cognitive biases come from heuristics, which help us make decisions quickly. It stands to reason, then, that in order to limit the cognitive biases we’re employing, we have to first recognize what heuristics are at play. Asking yourself questions like “Am I focusing on some information at the expense of other information?” or “is there some kind of information that I’m missing?” can be helpful when analyzing what biases are at play. By reviewing the presuppositions we have, it’s easier to see how our intuition may be helping us, or hurting us.

It’s also important to look at the issue from different perspectives. Being able to seek further information, as well as receive feedback, may help reduce the effects of cognitive biases (24). When you find something that confuses you, don’t just take the critics’ word for it, look at what FAIR has to offer, or consult other experts in different areas. Not only is there likely to be information that you didn’t know (thus helping your intuition recognize true patterns and adjust to dominant information), but it can also be nice to analyze issues from people with different perspectives (25). It’s also easier to verify your information too, so this practice of looking at what other people have to say can be useful in fact-checking your data, which is always going to be useful for critical thinkers.

Conclusion

In conclusion, heuristics can be a widely versatile tool that can help us resolve problems in powerful ways. However, just like any tool, it can be misused, and can sometimes get in the way of our ability to arrive at correct conclusions and solve problems. Cognitive biases come in many shapes and sizes, but they don’t have to define our thought processes. There are good ways to avoid allowing these mental shortcuts to disrupt our analyses. It’s imperative to recognize that these cognitive biases will never truly disappear. They will always be a part of us, and no one is impervious to their influence (26). Again, heuristics are important…even if we could ignore them we don’t have the time or energy to function well in this modern world without them. Instead, it serves us to be patient with ourselves as we root out what we consider to be good and bad. As we analyze where our intuition can sometimes lead us astray, it will become easier for us as critical thinkers to solve problems, and avoid common pitfalls that inhibit good reasoning. In short, learning how (and how not) to use heuristics can help us improve how we learn, how we use our agency, and eventually help us become the kind of thinkers and believers I think God wants us to be.

References:

https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/cognitive-bias
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/heuristics
https://www.ics.uci.edu/~majumder/vispercep/chap4notes.pdf
https://www.simplypsychology.org/inattentional-blindness.html
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-unconscious/202001/how-the-unconscious-works
Gigerenzer, G., & Gaissmaier, W. (2011). Heuristic decision making. Annual review of psychology, 62, 451–482. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120709-145346
Korteling, J. E., Brouwer, A. M., & Toet, A. (2018). A Neural Network Framework for Cognitive Bias. Frontiers in psychology, 9, 1561. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01561
https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/negotiation-skills-daily/the-drawbacks-of-goals/
https://sites.psu.edu/aspsy/2020/12/01/lesson-10-overcoming-the-fundamental-attribution-error/; a more charitable view of this cognitive bias can be found here https://www.mit.edu/~k2smith/pdf/WalkerSmithVul_2015_FAE.pdf
https://dictionary.apa.org/availability-heuristic
https://penntoday.upenn.edu/news/penn-research-shows-mormons-are-generous-and-active-helping-others
https://www.whyy.org/wp-content/uploads/planphilly/assets_1/http-planphilly-com-sites-planphilly-com-files-cnaan_lds_giving-pdf.original.pdf
https://news.gallup.com/poll/152732/religious-higher-wellbeing-across-faiths.aspx; Not that things like “happiness” are a contest.
https://www.bayes.city.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/282373/The-Bias-Blind-Spot.pdf
Nickerson, R. S. (1998a). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175–220. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175
Robinson, J. D. (2016). Using blind reviews to address biases in medical malpractice. Blinding as a Solution to Bias, 181–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-802460-7.00012-7
https://dictionary.apa.org/hindsight-bias
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/science-choice/201803/what-is-loss-aversion
Huang, S., Stanley, M.L. & De Brigard, F. The phenomenology of remembering our moral transgressions. Mem Cogn 48, 277–286 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-019-01009-0 ; This is especially true for moral failures.
Fiske, S. T., & Tablante, C. B. (2015). Stereotyping: Processes and content. In M. Mikulincer, P. R. Shaver, E. Borgida, & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology, Vol. 1. Attitudes and social cognition (pp. 457–507). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14341-015
Derek Westra’s talk “Whistleblowers in the last days” goes over how the media portrays stereotypes, and sometimes falsehoods, about members of the church. It’s accessible online for free at this link here (you’ll need to log in first).
Abbink, K., & Harris, D. (2019). In-group favouritism and out-group discrimination in naturally occurring groups. PloS one, 14(9), e0221616. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0221616
D&C 9:8
Bojke L, Soares M, Claxton K, et al. Developing a reference protocol for structured expert elicitation in health-care decision-making: a mixed-methods study. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2021 Jun. (Health Technology Assessment, No. 25.37.) Chapter 6, Reviewing the evidence: heuristics and biases. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK571047/
https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/healthyliving/talking-through-problems
https://markmanson.net/cognitive-biases-that-hurt-relationships

Further Study:

Berthet, V., & de Gardelle, V. (2023). The heuristics-and-biases inventory: An open-source tool to explore individual differences in rationality. Frontiers in psychology, 14, 1145246. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1145246; This is a more comprehensive, open list of cognitive biases noted by several different authors/researchers. Feel free to explore them at your leisure.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/glebtsipursky/2023/04/15/12-strategies-to-defeat-cognitive-biases-and-boost-your-bottom-line/?sh=4c022a8650a6; Another great article on how to reduce cognitive biases that appears to be well-sourced.
Kunkler, K. S., & Roy, T. (2023). Reducing the impact of cognitive bias in decision making: Practical actions for forensic science practitioners. Forensic science international. Synergy, 7, 100341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2023.100341; This article discusses multiple more practical ways to reduce cognitive biases from a more technical standpoint. While this focuses primarily on scientists, it has some useful ideas that might be translated into other aspects of life.

The post By Study and Faith – Episode 6: Cognitive Biases appeared first on FAIR.

Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – 1 Corinthians 8–13

Mon, 28 Aug 2023 19:37:30 +0200

Evangelical Questions: Men and Women

by Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC

Welcome back to Come Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions. My name is Jennifer Roach and today we’re going to talk about the interdependence of women and men. As you know we’re going through the Come Follow Me readings and addressing common questions that Evangelicals ask about our faith as we go along. Our purpose here is not to fuel debate but to help you understand where your Evangelical friends and family are coming from so that you can have better conversations with them, and perhaps even be able to offer them a bit of our faith in a way they can understand.

In a past episode, we talked about the role of women in both groups -there are some similarities and some significant differences. So I don’t want to rehash that part. But what I want to talk about has more to do with the way both groups see the interdependence of men and women. We’ll use 1 Cor 11:11 as our jumping-off point:

Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

I’ll start by saying neither group denies this verse. You’d be very hard-pressed to find an Evangelical who is going to write off any of Paul’s words and Latter-day Saints certainly embrace this idea as well. The difference is in how each group plays this out. And really, the short summary of that, is that Latter-day Saints generally think in a more communal mind-set than Evangelicals do. Let me give you an easy example.

I like to listen to audiobooks while I’m doing things around the house and lately I’ve been kind of obsessed with books on the history of the Western states, especially as it comes to water issues. So I’ve been listening to a classic in that genre called, “Cadelic Desert.” The early part of this book is about the history of the irrigation system in the West and the author is explaining the challenges and extraordinary effort required to bring water to the right places. The thing that caught my attention is that as he goes through this though is that he says, in many different ways, the “Mormons” figured out irrigation systems early on because they were a tight-knit society where the communal good could be more easily be put ahead of the individual good. Now, that doesn’t always work out, and certainly worked out easier in the 1910’s and 1920’s that this author was referring to.

So today what I want to talk about is some of the factors that cause Evangelicals to think about the individual and the community slightly differently than Latter-day Saints do. And then we’ll apply those thoughts to the concept of how gender roles play out differently for each.

We’ll start with some history. The Evangelicals are really influenced here by their desire to react against the Methodists. When the Evangelical movement begins – think early Billy Grayham, 1960’s – the largest player in the Protestant world in the United States are the Methodists. Today you can find Methodist churches all across the spectrum from very conservative to extremely liberal. But back then, Methodism mostly meant, “Your grandmother’s church.” There’s a lot of cultural upheaval at this time, rules in society are changing, and the early Evangelicals want to attend churches that feel like they’re keeping up with the times. In some ways, the early Evangelicals are in “reactionary identity” – meaning that they’re doing what teenagers sometimes do: first decide what they don’t want to be, and usually it’s, “I don’t want to be like my parents.” In their early days, Evangelicals were in this reactionary-identity mode of, “I don’t know what I am yet, but I’m not a fuddy-duddy grandma church.” So their initial starting place is: We want to be opposite of what is currently happening.

And really, they start with the most basic question: How does one enter into a relationship with Jesus Christ? For a very long time, the answer is: Well, not the way my parents did it. And how their parents did it, in the Methodist churches of that time, was infant baptism. Now, Methodists don’t conceptualize infant baptism the same as Catholics do, and I don’t want to get into the weeds of what that’s all about, but suffice it to say that the early Evangelicals were very clear on not wanting anything that seemed too old-fashioned, so they reject the Methodist practice. But every movement, especially a brand new one, needs allies and mentors, and the early Evangelicals found that support in the Southern Baptists. Why are they called “Baptists”? Because they believe in credobaptism, which basically means the individual person should be old enough to make a decision about baptism on their own. The opposite of that is pedobaptism, which is the fancy word for “infant baptism.” So it’s not even that the early Evangelicals were theologically set on credobaptism, they just knew they didn’t want pedobaptism. But that move sets them into an alliance with the Baptist churches – which are nothing if not independent. If you’ve been a Latter-day Saint your entire life this might take a moment to wrap your mind around, but Baptists are technically not considered a denomination. A denomination has some kind of central authority, the member-churches must follow certain rules and policies, as well as receive direction and over-sight from the central authority. Baptists conceptualize themselves as a “convention,” that is a group of like-minded churches that want to associate with each other – but who operate entirely independently and have very little responsibility to their headquarters. And if they want out, they can easily leave. Historically they disagree with each other on just about everything and for the most part that is not a problem. Though you might have heard in the news this year, one of the largest churches in the Southern Baptist Convention, Saddleback Church in Southern California, left the Convention over disagreements about the role of women.

But when the early relationship with the Baptists only gets them so far. By the time the late 1960’s come around the Evangelicals are trying to reach the hippie flower children and want to even further distance themselves from the “grandma church” culture (as they saw it – grandmas hold the churches of the world together, truth be told) so they start to remove the concept of baptism at all. It takes decades for this move to fully take effect, but today baptism has been sidelined in many Evangelical churches. It’s seen as an optional thing you might do if you feel led to do so, but it’s not necessary for salvation by any means.

This creates a problem for them though – if you’re not going to teach people to, as the New Testament says, “believe and be baptized” then how are people to identify themselves as believers? They invent something that today is called, “the sinner’s prayer” where they ask Jesus to be their “personal Lord and Savior.” Do you catch that word, “personal” – we’re talking today about individualism and community, how that has developed, and what it means for women and men. That phrase, “personal savior” comes to symbolize their entire stance toward their faith – it is a relationship that is entirely between you and God and no one else really gets a say in it. So from very early on in their history, Evangelicals are shaped by this idea that their faith is theirs alone, no one else can do it for them. And to this day that is a strong value for them. In 2020 a book came out called, “Jesus and John Wayner,” which is a critique of the Evangelical impulse toward rugged individualism.
Latter-day Saints on the other hand have spent most of the last 200 years being in a different situation. Because of the situation the early Latter-day Saints found themselves in, they didn’t have the luxury of straying too far away from the main group – they needed each other in order to survive. So from the very outset, Latter-day Saints are being formed as a people who rely on each other, sometimes for very basic survival. And though this is not as true as it used to be, you still see it play out in television and movies. A few weeks back at the FAIR conference Derek Westra gave a talk about this and how Latter-day Saints are portrayed in the media. Derek works for the church in the communications department and his job is to keep tabs on how our church is portrayed in the media. He showed example after example of recent shows and movies that portray Latter-day Saints as insular, afraid of outsiders, and as “not allowed” to reach books that are not printed by the church. The kind of communalism that I’m talking about is probably lower now than it has been in 200 years, but it’s still significant enough that outsiders see it and exaggerate it for entertainment.

Let me give you one more example of how Latter-day Saints have been shaped by a communal mindset. In contrast to, “you must ask Jesus to be your personal Lord and Savior,” Latter-day Saints have been formed by these words, “How are they to become saviors on Mount Zion? By building their temples, erecting their baptismal fonts, and going forth and receiving all the ordinances, baptisms, confirmations, washings, anointings, ordinations and sealing powers upon their heads, in behalf of all their progenitors who are dead, and redeem them that they may come forth in the first resurrection and be exalted to thrones of glory with them; and herein is the chain that binds the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the children to the fathers, which fulfills the mission of Elijah.” We are formed not by a reactionary identity but by trying to link the entire human family together. It’s the opposite of Western Individualism or John Wayne Christianity. This is kind of a dumb analogy, but Evangelicalism is like team gymnastics. You’ve seen the Olympics, each team is made up of a certain number of athletes, and each athlete contributes their individual score to a group total. No gymnast can do anything to help the others. She is responsible entirely for her own performance which is then added to the group total. But no one helps her. Contrast that with baseball (or softball, or kick ball) if the bases are loaded and you’re up, you know what your job is – get your friends home. They can’t progress without your effort.
And that brings up to the interdependence of men and women. One of the most frequent questions I’ve been asked by friends outside of our church is something like: Has it been hard for you to “lower your status” as a woman? Or, “What does it feel like to now be in a church where women have no voice?” And sometimes I don’t even know how to answer that question because the context is so entirely different. Before I was baptized into our church, it’s true, I had some opportunities that I don’t have now. I was ordained, for example. That is not open to me now. I’m 100% fine with that, and let me explain why. If I were a gymnast and I were told, “You’re not allowed to do any of the coolest tricks,” I’d be upset for myself and for my team, “If I can’t do the coolest tricks, how will I ever contribute a high score to our team’s total?” It would be insulting because I know I can do more and I’m being artificially held back. But when you’re playing a team sport like baseball the whole thing is set up so that certain people are in certain positions for reasons. The pitcher isn’t placed there because he’s bad at catching, he’s placed there because he can pitch. The outfielder isn’t there because he’s bad at being a catcher – he’s there to play his role for reasons and without him the game would be lost. So, if I have a choice – and I do – between being just an individual and trying to get the highest score I can all on my own, and being part of a team where we’re meant to help each other get home, I know which one I choose.

Okay, that’s all the time we have for this week. Next week we’re talking about prophecy and how all of that works for both groups. I will see you then.

More Come, Follow Me resources here.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – 1 Corinthians 8–13 appeared first on FAIR.

Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – 1 Corinthians 1–7

Mon, 21 Aug 2023 20:51:01 +0200

Evangelical Questions: Satan and Jesus are brothers?

by Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC

Welcome back to Come Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions. My name is Jennifer Roach and today we’re going to talk about an issue that baffles Evangelicals to their core: Jesus and Satan as brothers.. As you know we’re going through the Come Follow Me readings and addressing common questions that Evangelicals ask about our faith as we go along. Our purpose here is not to fuel debate but to help you understand where your Evangelical friends and family are coming from so that you can have better conversations with them, and perhaps even be able to offer them a bit of our faith in a way they can understand.

So, we’re in 1 Corinthians now, and in chapter 1 we get a lot of talk about unity, acting as one in Christ, that we are all brothers and sisters. I don’t have a specific verse that really sums this up in a tidy way, so I’m just using the overall theme here. There is a lot of corruption and immorality happening in the church in Corinth and Paul is writing to them to basically tell them to get it together. You may know this but Paul basically has 2 modes that go something like this. We see the first mode in the opening of this letter. Paul says, “Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints….” But there is another side of Paul that he gets to pretty quickly here and it’s all, “For the love of God, could you little freaks act normal for 5 min?” And this is what we get a lot of in both 1 and 2 Corinthians. And for good reasons. But with both of these modes what he is doing is trying to inspire them to be better than they have been, and treating each other like actual brothers and sisters is a big part of that here.

Now, Latter-day Saints, when I say, “God is the Father of us all,” you nod your head and hear no issue with that. You’re probably thinking, “Yeah, Jennifer, skip past the part I already know. God is the Father of all.” But, let me tell you how it gets a little weird for Evangelicals. They would put a huge asterisk next to the word “all” and in the footnote would be something like, “Well, God is the Father of all humans who choose to belong to him. But not really the Father of ALL.” We’ve talked before on this show about how Evangelicals see God as an entirely different species from humans, so he’s not actually their Father in the way Latter-day Saints think about. And the question that comes up here sometimes from Evangelicals is something like, “Wait. You think God is the Father of both Jesus and Satan?” A lot of Latter-day Saints would respond with, “Umm, yeah, of course. He is the Father of all.” I want to explain to you how and why Evangelicals hear it differently and we’re going to do that by talking about a very old little film called The God Makers.

If you are close to my age, or older, you probably already know what this is. But if not, the brief summary is that it was the most popular anti-mormon propaganda of its day. It’s a movie that was put out in the early 1980’s. It runs about an hour long. You can watch it on Youtube if you really want to. Sometimes its under the title, “Banned Mormon Cartoon!” It was very popular with Evangelicals in the 1980’s. Most of you know I grew up in an Evangelical church and my church showed that film as frequently as they could. We watched it during the church service sometimes, and they would have Sunday School classes where they’d watch it and talk more in-depth about it. The reason I bring up this movie is that it is one of the big sources of twisting truth just enough so that our beliefs seem very unreasonable. It was the CES Letter of its day. As an aside, I will tell you that the author of the movie, and the book by the same name, is from Washington State. When I joined the church 4 years ago I was actually living in the same stake where he had spent most of his life, and where he wrote that book. Which I just found to be incredibly ironic – here I am, this lifelong Evangelical who had received a lot of my early information about the church from this terrible little film, I move into Ed’s neighborhood, and join the church. I just find that amusing. Anyway..

One of the themes in that movie is this idea that Jesus and Satan are brothers. And Evangelicals are scandalized by this. Even though that movie is from 40 years ago – and I’d be surprised if there are any Evangelical churches that are still using it – the slant that he put on it stuck in the Evangelical imagination because of what that means for them. Let me try to explain how they hear it…

One popular Evangelical apologist says it like this, “the biblical witness is clear and convincing: Jesus Christ is the eternal Creator God. Paul explicitly teaches that Jesus is the creator of all.” Now, Latter-day Saints, I know that your brain is going, “Yeah…but what does that have to do with this?” Because Latter-day Saints also believe Jesus is the eternal creator God. He was there at the creation of the world. In Evangelical-speak what they’re trying to say is that 1) Satan is a created being 2) Jesus is the Creator God 3) How can Jesus both create Satan AND be his brother?

The first time I read through Mosiah and got to 5:7 I was puzzled by what I was reading. Here is the verse, “because of the covenant which ye have made ye shall be called the children of Christ, his sons, and his daughters; for behold, this day he hath spiritually begotten you; for ye say that your hearts are changed through faith on his name; therefore, ye are born of him and have become his sons and his daughters.” I really only understood how to read that through Trinitarian eyes. My thinking was something like: Jesus is the Son, but he and the Father are the same, so he is the Father also. But this is not a Trinitarian statement. In Evangelical thinking Creator and Father are identical. When Jesus is functioning as Creator (something Latter-day Saints and Evangelicals do not disagree on) Evangelicals see that as him being “the same substance” as the Father. So they get upset about the idea that Jesus and Satan could be brothers because it drags Satan into the Trinity. To them…brothers are equals (as in “we’re all brothers and sisters”) so to say that Jesus and Satan are brothers is to say that Satan is equal to Jesus. We talked in the early episodes of this series that one of the best characteristics of Evangelicals is that they’re passionately protective about getting Jesus theologically correct. And that deserves respect. But what they can’t quite see here is how extra-biblical teaching from the 4th century obscures the picture. In the 4th Century God the Father and Jesus Christ are said to be made of “the same substance” homioousias is the word there, they no longer know how to make sense of the fact that God the Father is still the Father of all – including Jesus, including every created thing, including Satan, including you and me. But the “same substance” issue obscures how they see Jesus. If you’d like more on this part of the topic I recommend an article by my friend and colleague Ben Spackman called, “Covenants and Kinship: Jesus as the Father.” He gets into more of the technicalities there than we have time for here.

So, all of that to say, when an Evangelical says, “You believe Jesus and Stan are brothers,” it’s intended as a critique. What they mean is: You have an improper view of Jesus. This is at least part of where the phrase, “You worship a different Jesus,” comes from.

Let me pivot a bit and use a different, less philosophical argument. In the Bible, both Jesus and Satan are called, “The bright and morning star.” The name “Lucifer” is a Latin word literally meaning “morning start.” And we know that Jesus is called the morning star a number of times in the New Testament. Both of them are given this title. Another example from the Bible….both Jesus and Satan are called a lion. Satan is a lion who seeks to devour believers, and Jesus is called the Lion of the Tribe of Judah. So, they’re both stars, they’re both lions. They’re also both called sons.

If you ask any Evangelical they will be very clear with you: They are not confused when Satan is called a lion, and when Jesus is called a lion. They understand that just because the concept of lion can be applied to both of them does not make them equals. They also easily understand this with the “morning star” phrase – though that one is a bit more obscure and you’d have to have an Evangelical who has studied a bit to get deep into that example. But for those who know about it, they’re not confused about Jesus and Satan being different, even though the term “morning star” is applied to both. The term “son of God” is applied to both Jesus Christ – and to humans. In the book of Job “Sons of God” sometimes means angels, sometimes it means devils, and sometimes it means humans. But no one is confused that 3 different groups are being referred to here.

But it’s a trigger for them to hear that Jesus and Satan are brothers – despite all these other examples where they’re fully adept at language and can see words used in different ways – when they hear “Jesus and Satan are brothers” they really only hear “Jesus and Satan are equals.” We’ve talked a number of times in this series about the “species” problem. Latter-day Saints see God, angels, devils, and humans as all the same species. While Evangelicals see 3 different species there.

So, how do you get out of this corner with them? This isn’t the one and only answer, but here is my suggestion. Go back to the beginning. Non Latter-day-Saint-Christians don’t have the same understanding of the pre-mortal council that we do. But helping them understand that story might be a good direction to help them understand what we’re actually saying about God being the Father of All, Jesus still being the eternal Creator God, and how all of us from Jesus to Satan, to you and me, are all children of Heavenly Father. At least part of the point that teaching is making is that we are all God’s children – and we are given the ability to make choices. Jesus chooses to serve and save all the rest of us not by force, but by allowing us to make a choice. Satan wants to take away choice. Evangelicals want to know that Jesus and Satan are as different as night and day, and the conversation about what happened even before this world was created might help them see what you believe about that in a different way.

Alright, come back next week, we’ll be at the end of 1 Corninithians and we’re going to take about Paul’s great verse regarding men and women needing each other and how that plays out differently in both groups. See you then!

More Come, Follow Me resources here.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – 1 Corinthians 1–7 appeared first on FAIR.

By Study and Faith – Episode 5: Epistemology

Sun, 20 Aug 2023 17:46:17 +0200

by Zachary Wright

Introduction

In my life, I’ve found that everyone has a specific philosophy that they live by, whether they realize it or not. Nowhere is this more true than when it comes to the philosophical branch of epistemology. Epistemology, while sounding complicated and boring to some, is just the fancy way of saying “the study of knowledge.” Consider the following:

Epistemology is the theory of knowledge. It is concerned with the mind’s relation to reality. What is it for this relation to be one of knowledge? Do we know things? And if we do, how and when do we know things? These questions, and so the field of epistemology, is as old as philosophy itself. (1)

As we can see, this is a pretty deep topic, and I doubt I could cover everything about epistemology in this article. For example, a branch of epistemology touches on whether or not it’s even possible to know anything, and we’re not going to be getting into that. However, we will be going over the branch of epistemology that covers “how do we know what we know,” or in other words, “where do we learn what we know.” Why does this matter? Critical thinkers need to establish an epistemology so that they can develop levels of confidence about the validity of certain information. With that confidence, it becomes easier for us to make decisions in light of the evidence, and solve problems. In this article, we’re going to be explaining some terms, then go over some sources from which we can learn, and then explore how these concepts can relate to LDS theology. Hopefully, that will help explain this complex issue in a useful way.

Knowledge & Certainty

Now, a brief definition of terms is warranted here. Knowledge is a tricky thing to define, and there is a lot of discussion about how every epistemology fails to account for something at some point (2). However, this does not mean that all epistemologies are created equal, and there are good ways to establish confidence about an idea regardless. For this article, when I use the term “knowledge,” I’m going to be borrowing from philosophy professor Michael Huemer’s definition of it as outlined in his book Understanding Knowledge. Michael Huemer suggests that there are four things that we need to have knowledge, which is referred to as the “defeasibility theory of knowledge.” It’s outlined in his book in the following way:

Belief: You have to believe that it’s true
Truth: it must agree with reality
Justification: there has to be a reason for you to believe it
There can’t be any proposition that, if added, would remove the justification for believing it (3)

This model, as with all models, has some presuppositions. It presupposes that objective truth exists, and that it is indeed knowable through specific processes. (Whether or not it does exist is another discussion; but to be fair, claiming the opposite would in itself be a claim of objective truth, so denying objective truth is a self-defeating proposition, and in my opinion, should be avoided.) In short though, at least for this article, knowledge is an idea/conceptualization of something that meets those four criteria. Otherwise, at least from this perspective, that idea is only classified as a belief, and not necessarily knowledge.

Now, this is where things get tricky because according to this model, knowledge is differentiated from certainty. There are a few kinds of certainty defined by philosophers out there, but I’m mostly going off of the idea of “absolute certainty:” that is, the idea that we can know something without any kind of doubt whatsoever. Absolute certainty, as I see it, implies the idea that we are 100% confident that something is true. However, we can’t be 100% certain about anything, because even if we were to identify a way for us to be 100% certain about something, it would by necessity employ circular reasoning of some kind (4). Consider this illustrative argument:

P1: X Method teaches us how to be 100% certain about something

P2: This argument follows X Method

Conclusion: We can be 100% certain that X Method works

The problem there is apparent: the argument presupposes that X Method is true, and begs the question why it is true. It’s the same thing as saying “We can be 100% certain of X Method because X Method states we can be 100% certain of X Method”, an argument we recognize as fallacious. It’s worth noting too that absolute certainty is often associated with “psychological certainty”, and it can be had about beliefs just as much as it can be had about knowledge. Consider the following:

Psychological certainty, for its part, is generally regarded as being non-factive. For example, John can be psychologically certain that it is raining in Paris even if it is not raining in Paris. In addition, psychological certainty does not require that a subject be in a favorable epistemic position. John can have no reason to believe that it is raining in Paris, and yet, be psychologically certain that it is raining in Paris. (5)

In other words, the confidence we feel about something provides no strength to our ideas. With this in mind, absolute certainty is as worthless as it is impossible to obtain. So, does that mean that we can’t have any confidence about anything? Well, no, it just means that we can’t be 100% certain about anything. This doesn’t mean that we can’t develop confidence in an idea at all. The goal of epistemology is to provide a system of learning that can help us be confident about our ideas, an “epistemic certainty” if you will (6). It is for this reason that I and others have no problem saying statements like “I know the church is true” when we bear our testimonies. We’re not saying that we have absolute certainty that the church is true: rather, we’re saying that we have a high degree of confidence (due to the Spirit) that the church is true and that our testimonies are based on the prerequisites for “knowledge” described above.

The Umbrella Model

When we “Learn” something, I’m referring to two kinds of processes by which a piece of information ends up in our brain. The first kind of learning comes from a more concrete psychological perspective, where learning is characterized by terms such as Classical Conditioning, Operant Conditioning, and Observational Learning. Using sensations and perceptions, we’re able to receive signals from the outside world and translate them into thoughts (7). Those thoughts are then put into our brains, and we have them at our disposal (though the mechanism by which this occurs is still lost on neuroscientists and psychologists). The second form of learning is more abstract and has to do with consciously or unconsciously processing the information we’ve taken in (8). I mention this because I classify my epistemology as being under these two umbrella categories: internal to the mind, and external to the mind. Consider the following diagram.

This is a diagram of epistemology that I think suits the purposes and needs of all people, including LDS critical thinkers.

Under the external umbrella, I’ve allocated each of the things that I reserve as being primarily focused outside of the self. In other words, this is the umbrella where we have outside information being put into our minds. Behavioral consequences or outcomes, for instance, happen outside of the body, and must be observed (and I have yet to find other things to put under this umbrella, as you’ll soon see). When I use the term “observe” or “observation,” I’m not just referring to using your eyes; rather, I’m referring to the full spectrum of sensation and perception. For example, if I were to take a bite of an apple, that’s an outcome of a behavior that I would observe and internalize through sensation/perception (9). It’s worth noting that the scientific method falls into this sub-category. Some basic examples of this include the following:

We look in the sky and see a bird flapping its wings. We observe the outcome of that behavior: that bird can fly.
I reach my hand out and accidentally touch a hot stove. I observe the outcome of that behavior: my hand gets burned.
We, against our better judgment, bite into a raw tomato. We observe the outcome of that behavior: That tomato tastes terrible.

In the same realm as behavior outcome, we have communication or testimony. Communication is unique among behavior outcomes in the sense that it is the only way for us to understand ideas that other people have in their minds, and the only way for others to understand the ideas in our minds (10). Some basic examples of this include the following:

My mom tells me she loves me. I observed the outcome of that behavior: I now have the idea communicated to me that my mother loves me
Someone scrunches up their face, furrows their eyebrows, and is yelling. I observe the outcome of that behavior: I have the idea communicated to me that they’re upset.
My sister hugs me. I observed the outcome of that behavior: I now have the idea communicated to me that she cares about me.

As you can see, with communication, there is a bit of clarification that needs to happen, and a bit of cultural background and knowledge is required. However, I wouldn’t put it outside of the external umbrella, as it is still very clearly the result of behavior outside of yourself. However, that specific behavior seems to be subject to more complex, internal processes (more on that in a moment).

As for the internal methods of having ideas put into our minds, we turn to both the processes of reasoning and intuition. The internal umbrella is characterized by our brains processing or adding information in our minds, (mostly) independent from their surroundings. This is where I place Reason and Intuition as epistemic sources. Now, I’ve already done two articles that explore logic, logical fallacies, and reasoning, so I won’t go into too much detail here. However, suffice it to say that reason is the process of arriving at specific conclusions based on specific premises, analyzing the strength of ideas to arrive at new ideas. An additional note I will add here is that these premises can be arrived at by any source of information, but reason allows us to arrive at new conclusions/ideas. Intuition though is a bit harder to explain, and it has a kind of slippery definition. Roughly speaking, it’s all the ideas that arrive in our head that don’t come from conscious reasoning (11). Consider the following characterization of intuition, and how it differs from Insight:

Based on these examples, both phenomena – intuition and insight – may be conceived of as non-analytical thought processes that result in certain behavior that is not based on an exclusively deliberate and stepwise search for a solution. Non-analytical thought means a thought process in which no deliberate deduction takes place: individuals are not engaged in the consecutive testing of the obvious and/or typical routes to solutions that define deliberate analysis. Instead, intuitions are characterized by the decision maker feeling out the solution without an available, tangible explanation for it; insights are characterized by the fact that the solution suddenly and unexpectedly pops into the mind of the decision maker or problem solver being instantaneously self-evident. (12)

There is a bit of debate as to where intuition comes from, but its ability to recognize patterns, its overall efficiency, and its impact on morality are all worth noting (13). Some basic examples of intuition include the following:

A surge of nervousness rushes through you as you enter a dangerous situation. You know that you’re in danger.
You make a decision quickly, but can’t explain why. It just “felt” right.
You have a feeling in your ‘gut’ that you should listen to the missionaries and what they have to say.

As you look at the chart, there seems to be some kind of connection between each of the sources of information. Intuition and Reason seem to rely on outside information often to recognize patterns, establish arguments, and arrive at conclusions/ideas. Consequently, we see Intuition and Reason classify certain events a certain way, manipulating the authority they have as being stronger or weaker, thus affecting how we learn from external sources. I can cite an example of this concerning a historical figure in the church.

Those familiar with LDS history are familiar with the figure John C. Bennett. Bennett was a friend to Joseph Smith and the mayor of Nauvoo for a brief period. However, Bennett was cut off when Joseph found out that, among other things, Bennett was using his position (as well as rumors of plural marriage in Nauvoo) to trick women into sleeping with him (14). From that point on, Bennett became a bitter, hostile critic of the church, making all kinds of claims against Joseph Smith and the saints (with varying degrees of veracity). Here’s how one author described Bennett’s allegations against Joseph.

Bennett was touring the nation with a lurid, book-length exposé, charging Mormon leaders with “infidelity, deism, atheism; lying deception, blasphemy; debauchery, lasciviousness, bestiality; madness, fraud, plunder; larceny, burglary, robbery, perjury; fornication, adultery, rape, incest; arson, treason, and murder.” He said Smith and his followers “out-heroded Herod, and out-deviled the devil, slandered God Almighty, Jesus Christ, and the holy angels, and even the devil himself.”(15)

That’s quite the list of allegations, and the critical thinker will rightfully begin to question whether or not those claims are legitimate. Some people think so, others not (myself included), but that debate in and of itself isn’t the issue. The point I’m trying to make is that when we as critical thinkers read things like that, we are aware that our internal reasoning, or our intuition about Joseph Smith, affects how we view John C. Bennett. Perhaps intuition suggests that Bennett may be acting out of rage, or perhaps we reason that there’s more going on in the story. Whatever the case may be, our internal processes affect how we interpret external sources. More on that in a moment.

This explores another important facet of epistemology: that is, that epistemology shifts somewhat depending on the topic. I’m not saying that it changes without any standard; rather, I’m saying that outcomes of behaviors (both communication and otherwise), intuition, and reason all play different roles in different scenarios, and that what we give priority to needs to shift to be effective. Why is that? Because we only have so much information to work with for a given topic! For example, as in math, reason may be more helpful than communication in some scenarios. There are only so many people who talk about math, and the conceptualization of math is a purely internal, reason-based process done in our minds. For historical analysis, while reason may be useful, communication is often more important when it comes to arriving at conclusions. Communication provides more (hopefully accurate) details about past events, and the thought processes of the people who lived through them than reason does. As critical thinkers, we need to apply the right sources of information for the right kind of job…and this is especially true when it comes to religious belief.

Epistemic Regress and the Spirit

This is where things get tricky though, because we begin running into a problem. While the external umbrella sources are vital, most of the brunt work done in epistemology is done under the internal umbrella sources. It doesn’t matter how many testimonies or behavior outcomes exist around somebody, if the internal sources are in charge of processing the information, they ultimately have epistemic superiority over the sources in the external umbrella. But let’s say that we’re analyzing a complex topic such as “morality”…which one is better: Reason or Intuition? One may initially suppose that “reason” is the ultimate source. However, we run into a problem there because reason requires an infinite number of premises to be acknowledged valid. Consider the following:

Arguments are our model for how these reasons go–we offer some premises and show how they support a conclusion. Of course, arbitrary premises won’t do, so you’ve got to have some reason for holding them as opposed to some others. Every premise, then, is a conclusion in need of an argument, and for arguments to be acceptable, we’ve got to do due diligence on the premises. This, however, leads to a disturbing pattern–for every premise we turn into a conclusion, we end up with at least one other premise in need of another argument. Pretty soon, even the simplest arguments are going to get very, very complicated. (16)

This dilemma is referred to by philosophers as the epistemic regress problem. However, before we can more fully explore the implications of epistemic regress, we have to explore some of the ways people have tried to solve it.

There are a few philosophical systems out there that attempt to resolve the problem (epistemic foundationalism, coherentism, infinitism, etc.). While there are notable differences between them, there is good evidence to support that they all derive their strength from a singular principle: metaphysical grounding (17). Metaphysical grounding tackles the question of “what grounds what,” or “what is the foundation or basis of something” (18). Consider the following:

Metaphysical ground is supposed to be a distinctive metaphysical kind of determination. It is or underwrites constitutive explanations. These explanations answer questions asking in virtue of what something is so. For example, suppose that an act is pious just in case it is loved by the gods. Following Socrates, one might still ask whether an act is pious because the gods love it or whether it is loved by the gods because it is pious. This may be interpreted as a question of ground. (19)

In other words, epistemologists seem to converge on the idea that the true basis of something is grounded on a fundamental principle (either that or they just embrace skepticism). After all, how can we expect to learn about topics like morality if we can’t identify the sources by which things like morality are learned from? However, that leads us back to our question: What is the ultimate source of knowledge about something like morality? What’s the foundation of morality? This is where I think Christianity, and specifically the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, really begins to shine.

As members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we believe that the foundation of everything good comes from God (20). We also believe that every person is given the ability to discern what is right and wrong through the Light of Christ, which is described as being “in all things” (21). This is where I believe that our moral intuitions come from (at least in part), though as we mentioned earlier, intuitions are affected by other aspects of our surroundings all the time. I see the Light of Christ and the Holy Ghost interacting with the above-outlined epistemology in a few different ways:

It suggests that the light of Christ is interwoven within every one of the sources of epistemology (though it’s arguably manifested most through intuition), helping us classify things as being morally “right” and “wrong”
The Holy Ghost uses these sources together to testify of Jesus Christ and to help us believe that he is the Savior and Redeemer of the world.
By enhancing our understanding of these sources, it becomes easier for us to recognize the Light of Christ and the Holy Ghost in the natural world.

This has all kinds of fascinating implications for what we find above. If this is how the Light of Christ/Holy Ghost works, what does that imply for our souls? Do they interact with intuition in a similar way to help us choose? Or is there more than meets the eye? As it stands, it’s impossible to say, but this umbrella model of understanding epistemology accommodates LDS theology rather well.

Now, there is one more thing that I’ll mention here, and it has to do with the grounding example found above. Many people wonder whether something (let’s call it X) is good because God does X; or whether God does X because it is good. Other people phrase the question in terms of “is God subject to laws, or does God make the laws?” I find such discussions somewhat pointless (being a rather practical person), and a part of me thinks it’s a distinction without a difference. There is room in LDS theology for people to disagree on this issue. Regardless of your opinion, the point remains: by grounding our moral epistemologies on God, we claim that we can learn about an objective moral standard and that through a relationship with him, we will continue to learn more about that standard. Either way, God helps you gain access to that information. A belief in God also helps add insight to a centuries-old philosophical problem, which is always a plus.

Conclusion

In conclusion, epistemology is an important topic with a complex history. I hope that by discussing this topic, critical thinkers can be more equipped to answer questions and recognize where they’re getting their information from. By doing so, critical thinkers can arrive at better conclusions more often. LDS critical thinkers can also benefit from these ideas by being able to answer questions like “Do I know the church is true?” or “What are the sources of truth I can rely on?” We all have a lot to gain from studying epistemology, and I hope that by educating people about it, we can make a positive difference in the world.

References:

https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/philosophy/research/themes/epistemology
Huemer, M. (2022). Understanding Knowledge. M Huemer.
Ibid
With this statement, I’m referring to a certainty that isn’t the philosophical concept of “objective certainty” or “propositional certainty”. Objective certainty states that something MUST be true given the premises (this relates to deductive reasoning, which I’ve discussed here). However, I’m referring to ideas outside of this realm of certainty…the realm that deals with history, theology, and the vast majority of human experience.
https://iep.utm.edu/certainty/
Reed, Baron, “Certainty”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2022 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = .
Myers, D. G., & DeWall, C. N. (2020). Psychology (13th ed.). Worth Publishers. It’s worth noting that this is where many psychologists arrive at the realm of determinism. If all behavior is just X action + Y Environment → Sensation/Perception → Z result, then it becomes easy to believe in determinism. For a deeper dive into how this psychological view contrasts with LDS Theology, I recommend this article here (noting a more negative view of Determinism from a psychological perspective). For a more favorable view of (soft-)determinism concerning LDS theology, I recommend Tarik D. LaCour’s content here.
https://www.ninds.nih.gov/health-information/public-education/brain-basics/brain-basics-know-your-brain; The National Institute of Health does an excellent job in outlining the consensus of what psychologists and neuroscientists have determined is associated with brain function (they associate “reason” with the electrical signals fired in the Frontal Lobe). However, and you’ll find this universally, very few if any of the medical and psychological studies on the brain can explain why human brains “reason”. Determinism is the closest thing I’ve been able to find to an explanation, but as you can imagine, this prompts the question as to whether or not concepts such as “reason” or “moral responsibility” are possible to begin with.
https://opened.cuny.edu/courseware/lesson/34/overview
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/some-assembly-required/201702/the-4-primary-principles-communication; This explores some principles behind communication as a way to transfer ideas/information.
https://dictionary.apa.org/intuition, note though that a growing body of literature is starting to reject the dichotomy between intuition and reason, such as this resource here
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5020639/
https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference/august-2022-fair-conference/moral-intuitions-and-persuasion; https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/articles/201912/8-truths-about-intuition; Note how both of these sources talk about how our moral intuitions shift over time according to our experiences, upbringing, etc.
Hales, S. A., Goldberg, J., Larson, M. L., Maki, E. P., Harper, S. C., & Farnes, S. (2018). Saints: The story of the church of jesus christ in the latter days. (L. S. Edgington & N. N. Waite, Eds.) (Vol. 1). The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.; see also Bushman, R. L., & Woodworth, J. (2007). Joseph Smith: Rough stone rolling. Vintage Books.
Ulrich, L. T. (2017). A house full of females: Family and faith in 19th-century Mormon Diaries (First). Alfred A. Knopf.
Aikin, S. F. (2010). Epistemology and the regress problem. Routledge.
Siscoe, R.W. Grounding and the Epistemic Regress Problem. Erkenn (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-022-00561-7
Bliss, Ricki and Kelly Trogdon, “Metaphysical Grounding”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2021 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = .
https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/display/document/obo-9780195396577/obo-9780195396577-0389.xml
Moroni 7:12
D&C 88:13

Further Study:

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference/august-2023; Steve Densley discusses how we can understand “knowledge”, and explores how we can “prove that the church is true. It’s the very last talk of the very last session of the Fair Conference, and you can find it for free at this link (you’ll need to create an account first though)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23yprWj_yAI; Jeffrey Thayne is an LDS psychologist who does an excellent job outlining how our moral intuitions are affected by our surroundings, and what the implications are for this are for LDS theology and practice. I cited him above, but I recommend him here too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wCVhhzmSlU; Another video you can use to study up on some of the issues found in epistemology. Very neutral philosophy channel in general.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vo484enDccA; This is another introduction to epistemology, and Huemer’s book. It’s pretty good, and I appreciated how it was explained here (this guy is an atheist, but tends to be pretty fair)

The post By Study and Faith – Episode 5: Epistemology appeared first on FAIR.

Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – Romans 7–16

Mon, 14 Aug 2023 20:44:31 +0200

Evangelical Questions: The Problem of Suffering

by Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC

Welcome back to Come Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions. My name is Jennifer Roach and today we’re going to talk about the role of suffering. As you know we’re going through the Come Follow Me readings and addressing common questions that Evangelicals ask about our faith as we go along. Our purpose here is not to fuel debate but to help you understand where your Evangelical friends and family are coming from so that you can have better conversations with them, and perhaps even be able to offer them a bit of our faith in a way they can understand.

Our jumping-off point today is Romans 8:17:

And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

And we’re going to talk about how suffering is viewed differently by Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints. Let me give you an overview of the Evangelical view, some of the history of how they got there and what it means for them on the practical level. At the end we’ll briefly compare it to the Latter-day Saint view.

Before I do that though – we’re in Romans. There is so much here in these chapters, and we’re going through it so fast. If you’re not confident in your ability to really follow Paul’s argument through this book please take advantage of the Come Follow Me resources that are available to you. My favorite to really break it down for you are the Scripture Central shows (previously Book of Mormon central.) They’ve got 3 or 4 different shows and they will talk you through it. We’re doing something quite different here and it’s not intended to teach you the content of the book of Romans, or any book really. But the books we will go through from now until the end of the year in the New Testament really deserve your careful consideration. Moving on.

As always, there is not one singular Evangelical point of view. I’ll try to give you the version of it that is pretty much right down the middle. A really good example of this view is heard in what one popular Bible teacher recently said, “In answer to the question of why God allows suffering, I don’t know. My ‘I don’t know’ answer to the question of why God allows suffering may not feel very theological. However, it does point to a truth that we sometimes forget. God’s ways and purposes are higher than ours, and we won’t always figure them out.”

And according to a Pew Research study in 2021 over 80% of Evangelicals say that the main reason suffering happens is random, “sometimes bad things happen.” When pressed for a reason beyond that 75% say that suffering is mostly because that person made bad choices and is suffering the consequences of their own actions. What I want you to get a sense of is that overall, for them, suffering is a glitch in God’s plan. Not a feature of that plan. In the same Pew study slightly over half of them see suffering as a punishment from God and almost 70% say that suffering comes directly from Satan and is opposed to God’s plan. Suffering is a glitch, not a feature.

Let me give you an example by talking through their view on the Garden of Eden.

When they hear the Eden story they focus on the idea that God created this perfect garden, and gave clear rules for living there that he expected them to follow. He gave them free will to disobey, but it was never in his plan for them to do so. Staying in the garden was Plan A and when Eve messed it up, God had to figure out how to fix the problem she caused.

If you remember back to our episode on atonement theories, you can really see how this plays out. The two most popular theories for Evangelicals are Substitutionary Atonement and Christus Victor. Sub Atonement uses a courtroom metaphor where God is the judge who condemns humanity, but Jesus offers to take the place of God’s wrath instead. And Christus Victor is a battle metaphor where Eve’s sin unleashes Satan into the world, and Christ has to fight him in order to save humanity. I think you can see, both of those are reactionary. God had a perfect plan (the garden) that he intended to keep going forever. Side-note: Evangelicals don’t read “and they discovered their nakedness” the same way we do. Latter-day Saints read that and understand that prior to this moment Adam and Eve were not able to procreate. Evangelicals read that differently and believe that life could have gone on forever and in theory, you and I could be living in the Garden today if only Eve hadn’t messed everything up. So, God creates this perfect Garden and wants humanity to live in it forever. And somehow, unexpectedly, Eve ruins the plan, and God must figure out how to solve the problem she has created. God must react to Eve’s choice.

What does this have to do with suffering? In the Evangelical view, suffering is a problem that must be solved. The only role it has in God’s plan is either, “Well, sometimes bad things happen,” or “That person is experiencing the consequences of their own dumb choice.” So in the Garden, Eve’s actions were not motivated to obey all of Heavenly Father’s commands, they were motivated solely by her wanting to be rebellious. Now, both Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints agree that Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden because of their own actions. The difference is that Latter-day Saints believe they had a bigger motive than just rebellion in the mix.

In the Evangelical view, Adam and Eve needed to suffer through living in the lone and dreary world because they had been bad, and this was their consequence. But the consequences were still not enough, and Jesus had to cover the cost for them in a reactionary way because of their mistake.

So you can see that underneath the question of, “Why is there suffering in the world?” is something like, “Is suffering a problem God had to unexpectedly react to?” Or was Jesus the plan from the beginning? Before the creation of the world did God already know he would send Jesus for our sins? Latter-day Saint friends I know you’re at home thinking, “Yes, of course, Jesus was the plan from the beginning!” But Evangelicals don’t see it that way. For them, there was no forethought of God saying, “We will provide for them a savior.” It was a crisis that had to be solved.

I’m going to pivot a tiny bit and talk about another aspect of suffering which is sometimes called The Problem of Evil. It goes something like this: If we are God’s children, and he actually loves us, how could he let ____ happen? How could he let my child die? How could he allow my friend to die of cancer? How could there be all these children suffering from abuse? And these are fair questions that deserve answers. Evangelicals answer the problem of evil very differently than Latter-day Saints do, at least at the theological level. Let me say, in the Evangelical world, they are very comfortable making a distinction between the theological answer to something, and the pastoral answer to something. Theological answers are allowed to sound cold and sometimes harsh, which pastoral answers are given in such a way that allows the one suffering to find some comfort. I’ll give you an example. My dad died when I was 12. The church I attended vigorously taught that anyone who didn’t make a profession of faith in the way they defined it would go straight to Hell. I had been taught this since childhood and even at 12 I knew what the theological answer was. But when I was actually in a situation where something terrible happened, I heard much softer answers, much more pastoral answers. Things like, “You don’t know what he actually felt in his heart.” Or, “Maybe he placed his trust in Christ at the very last second.” There’s not tons of comfort in those, but they’re better than outright saying, “Well, your father is being tortured in Hell right now.” But the theological answer to the problem of evil comes in a few different forms. I’ll briefly talk through 3 of them.

One, Evangelicals will sometimes say that suffering is God’s judgment against evil-doers. They will cite various scriptures, often from the Old Testament, to say that God uses bad circumstances to punish his children. Fair enough. But not a very satisfying answer if you’re 12 and just lost your dad. Second, this theory is sometimes called the, “soul-building” solution which says that God lets evil happen so that he can bring about better character in his children. Also, fair enough, and they can certainly provide scriptures to base that on. But – and not to make this all about me, but it’s just a good example – tell that to a 12-year-old who just lost her dad. That doesn’t get you very far. The third version is sometimes called, “God’s megaphone.” In this version pain and suffering are a way for God to loudly get our attention and focus back on him. Okay. But tell that to a child with cancer. It’s nonsensical.

The thing that all these theories have in common is that the premise is that God could go against the laws of nature if he wanted to. Again, not untrue, but these theories create another problem because the idea is that suffering should be considered unexpected and that God’s job is to help us avoid suffering whenever possible. It’s asking God to step outside of the very laws of nature, that he set up, and act in a way opposed to his own laws.

Latter-day Saints solve this problem slightly differently, and to me, this should be obvious by now, in a more satisfying way. Evangelicals are asking the question, “Why didn’t God transcend nature to help me avoid pain?” While Latter-day Saints are asking, “How is God operating within the bounds of nature in this situation?” God is using the natural world – including the parts of that world that make us suffer – to help us understand for ourselves what is good and what is not. In the Latter-day Saint view God is not the author or evil, but he’s also not going to prevent suffering or evil as it exists in the natural world. Elder Maxwell once said that trying to understand suffering without seeing the whole plan of salvation is like trying to understand a 3-act play by only watching the 2nd act. If you don’t know what came before, and what is going to happen at the end, the middle is a confusing mess. Latter-day Saints believe that we came from God, and will return to him. The whole point of coming to Earth is to learn and grow. We could have stayed in Heaven with God, and probably been quite happy – but we had to leave Heaven (had to leave Eden) to come to learn some things for ourselves. Evangelicals believe that humans only come into existence when they’re born, and not before. They miss the information given in Act 1 of the play. In Act 2, here on this Earth, we experience many terrible things. I do, and you do too. But the reason we’re here is to see if we will choose to hold true to what we knew before we got here. For Evangelicals Act 2 can be a time when they’re really confused and mad that God is not acting in ways outside of the world that he set up for us. They don’t understand why the play is set up the way it is – so they want the author of the play to change the story. But if they knew about Act 1, they’d know why the story is playing out the way it is. And when you miss Act 1, and misunderstand why God is not acting in certain ways in Act 2, it’s really hard to understand why Act 3 (eternity) is set up the way we believe it is.

Now, I will tell you, Evangelicals – many of them, most of them – are trying to stay faithful to what they know to be true, in the midst of lots of suffering, and doing the best they can. But the frustration of the problem of evil, or the problem of suffering is closer to the surface for them, and more frustrating for them than it might be for Latter-day Saints.

Well, that was a lot. Suffering is a huge topic and we’ll actually come back to this in a future episode, but I hope this gives you enough to start to see the differences in how we think about these things, and maybe gives you some ideas about how to talk about our hope based on the knowledge we have. Come back next week, we’re going to do one of the most common Evangelical questions: How are Jesus and Satan brothers? It will be fun. See you then.

More Come, Follow Me resources here.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – Romans 7–16 appeared first on FAIR.

Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – Romans 1–6

Mon, 07 Aug 2023 21:11:29 +0200

Evangelical Questions: How Do ‘Works’ Work?

by Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC

Welcome back to Come Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions. My name is Jennifer Roach and today we’re going to talk about more about grace and works. As you know we’re going through the Come Follow Me readings and addressing common questions that Evangelicals ask about our faith as we go along. Our purpose here is not to fuel debate but to help you understand where your Evangelical friends and family are coming from so that you can have better conversations with them, and perhaps even be able to offer them a bit of our faith in a way they can understand.

Before I get started I just have to say….It was so fun to meet so many of you at the FAIR conference last week. So many of you have lived lives of long-term faithfulness to this gospel and yet you are kind enough to embrace a newcomer like me. I have never once felt unwelcome or unloved in this church – and to me that is a testament to the gospel. We have all these people who have just lived lives of patient faithfulness and it shows up in all parts of who they are. And, you know, I’ve got to do a lot of really cool things in our church over the last few years, and sometimes people are surprised that I’ve been in the church less than 5 years. But, I will tell you what, almost all of that has been through people I met at FAIR. I’m so grateful. My understanding is that the talks will be available online sometime this week. I gave a talk on my research into how the church handles sexual abuse on Friday afternoon and I encourage you to take a listen when it’s available. It’s totally outside of the scope of what we’re doing here – so I’m not going to recap any of it – but if that topic interests (or worries!) you at all, find my talk and take a listen. I’m sort of embarrassed to tell you this, but also so incredibly proud – every year FAIR gives out an award called the John Taylor Defender of the Faith Award to a person who has made a significant effort toward the work of apologetics and this year they gave it to me. I’ve read the list of recipients from years past – I consider many of them friends and all of them colleagues in the Gospel. It’s a huge honor to be listed with them. And I feel so grateful for being honored like that.

Okay, so today we’re going to talk about grace and works. This is the third of, I think, 6 times we will address it – each time from a slightly different angle. Today’s scripture jumping off point is Roamans 3:23-24:

All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.

Now, I don’t know any Latter-day Saints who read that verse and say, “No, absolutely not. This is not how it works.” And in recent years there have been a number of General Conference talks and other teachings about the importance of grace. If we were just tracing Latter-day thought on this topic there isn’t very much interesting in the way of debate. We believe Paul when he says we are saved by grace. Which is part of why conversation about grace gets difficult with Evangelicals. The traditional line would be something like, “You guys don’t believe in grace.” And Latter-day Saints get confused and say, “No, I’m pretty sure we do…” Sometimes they can quote statements from the past that are not part of our teachings to “prove” we don’t believe in grace. And the conversation goes downhill from there.

Evangelicals here are very similar to other Protestants – and there is history here. We have to go all the way back to the 5th century and talk about Pelagius. He wrote about how to be a Christian while the Roman Empire is disintegrating. He came from Briton to Rome and is actually the first known British author. He was condemned as a heretic in 418 in a complicated series of trial that were trying to hold him responsible for things he said – as well as things that were said in his name. This might sound like ancient history but even in 2018 there was a major book, 400 pages, called The Myth of Pelagianism, so its still alive and well in theological circles. Anyway, the main charge against Pelagius is that he denies grace – while the opposite camp Augustinianism says that grace is all you need. What happened was Pelagius is a British Monk and he travels to Rome. While living there he observes the lax moral standards of the Christians living there. Sometimes this period is called “Late Antiquity” and during this century there are lots of wars between the Goths and Byzantines. It’s essentially the last vestiges of the Roman Empire as it once was and morals have mostly collapsed in all of society, including among the Christians. So, Pelagius shows up, sees the moral decay, and starts to preach and teach that people need to use their will to choose to do things as God would have them do. Neither the political leaders nor the religious leaders like what he is saying – and there was a lot of moral corruption in the Catholic church at that time – so they have him declared a heretic. They actually find him guilty at 3 different trials – one while he was alive, and then after he died they were still so mad at him that they had 2 more trials and found him guilty again, even though he was already dead.

Now, Pelagius was actually wrong about plenty of things, and I’m not here to defend him. Im telling you all of this because this is the history that is playing in the background. Many – maybe most – Evangelicals are not going to know this history in specifics. But they have been handed down a tradition for 1600 years that says they shouldn’t ever say anything except that grace is all one needs and putting out effort toward good works doesn’t really matter.

Evangelicals also went through a repeat of history in the 20th century on this. I covered this in one of my earlier episodes but Evangelicals used to be called Neo-Fundamentalists. The term fundamentalist was coined in the 1920’s around the time of the Scopes Monkey Trials which had to do with the increasing acceptance of evolution in science. But by the 1940’s the fundamentalist movement had really fallen apart. And after WW2 there were a number of younger leaders who had grown up in the fundamentalist heyday who wanted to revive the enthusiasm of those days. They initially call themselves neo-fundamentalists, then later neo-evangelicals, and then later they drop the neo and just call themselves evangelicals.

And what this early group of Evangelicals really wanted was to not be seen as they saw their grandparent’s generation -as a bunch of old fuddy-duddies who had all kinds of rules for church that had to be followed. Billy Graham rises in fame during this period in part because of this cultural mix – people who were interested in the saving grace of the gospel, but none of the rules for behavior. They wanted people to preach to them that Jesus would save them – without also telling them that their behavior needed to reflect the fact that they had been saved. It was kind of late-Rome all over again. And while those details are probably too many decades past for most current Evangelicals to know, the culture they have is steeped in this.

So, whether they know it or not, Evangelicals have been taught that grace is good and works are bad. Never mind that the New Testament teaches over and over about what kinds of behaviors Christians should have. “Works” is a trigger word for them – its not based in the Bible, it’s based on their own history. I’m not saying that as an insult, but rather as a way to maybe help you think through other ways to talk about this stuff. If they’re using the word “works” with you, you now know what they mean by it. You might be able to shift the conversation toward a different way of saying the same thing out of respect for the amount of baggage that word carries for them.

Latter-day Saints are sometimes told by Evangelicals that we must “pray to accept Jesus into our hearts” and not rely on grace at all. But if you tell an Evangelical that you absolutely have Jesus in your heart they will tell you that you have the wrong Jesus so it doesn’t count. In other words, you must have the absolutely correct understanding of Jesus and if you err even a tiny bit, the whole thing doesn’t count. How are you to gain this perfect understanding of Jesus? You must be taught by the right kind of teacher and accept their teaching before your prayer will be accepted. The whole thing is based on the actions – or works – of the individual. If the correct actions, the correct beliefs, the correct prayer do not take place then the person is denied salvation. If this weren’t true they would easily accept us as Christians too, but they generally don’t because we have not done their version of works. They can’t see it as works, but that’s what it is.

Here is my suggestion if you want to have this conversation with an Evangelical loved one….skip the works/grace language. It’s so culturally and historically loaded that it’s really hard to get to the actual meaning of what’s being said. The reality is that both Latter-day Saints and Evangelicals believe grace is important, and believe works are important. They don’t necessarily see their works as “bad” works – they see our works as “bad” and it’s all just a muddle. Maybe instead try to talk about all of this in their language. If you wanted the video from last week about testimonies this is a good place to start. When an Evangelical gives their “testimony” they’re telling you the story of what their life was like before they found Jesus, how they put their trust in him, and how their life is different now. If you can “borrow” that language it might put them more at ease to see that you too are a believer in Christ who might have something to offer them. I actually had a conversation last week with someone who didn’t know I’m a Latter-day Saint and he was going on about “those Mormons” when he stopped himself and said, “you know, I’m sure that at least some of them must know about Jesus and love him – how could you not love Jesus if you really knew him?” And I thought that was a beautiful bridge because as it turns out there are an awful lot of members of our Church who know and love Jesus.

Well, that is what I have for you this week. If you’re interested go check out the FAIR Conference videos this week. Would love to hear what you think – there’s a little bit of something for every level of geeky interest. Come back next week and we’ll do some more.

More Come, Follow Me resources here.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – Romans 1–6 appeared first on FAIR.

Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – Acts 22–28

Mon, 31 Jul 2023 20:50:07 +0200

Evangelical Questions: Do Evangelicals have “a testimony”?

by Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC

Welcome back to Come Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions. My name is Jennifer Roach and today we’re going to talk about testimonies. As you know we’re going through the Come Follow Me readings and addressing common questions that Evangelicals ask about our faith as we go along. Our purpose here is not to fuel debate but to help you understand where your Evangelical friends and family are coming from so that you can have better conversations with them, and perhaps even be able to offer them a bit of our faith in a way they can understand.

Okay, so today we’re going to talk about scripture as a concept. We get our jumping-off verse from Acts 22:1:

Brothers and fathers, listen now to my defense.

And really this is just one example from the Book of Acts of people bearing their testimonies. And you might not realize this, but Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints use the word, “testimony” in rather different ways. Let me talk you through some of the variations.

We’ll start in a general sense. Evangelicals very much have the concept of having a testimony, but they use it in a very specific way. “Bearing one’s testimony” for an Evangelical usually follows a formula (all groups actually follow a bit of a formula, its just different depending on the group) but the Evangelical formula follows 3 steps that are….Before; How; Since. They talk through what their lives were like before they came to Christ, how it is that they came to trust Christ, and what their life has been like since. If you’re like me the immediate question that comes to mind is about how that works for children who were born into their church.

There will be some slight variation here, but the thing you have to understand is that Evangelical children are understood to be born into the world as sinners. From the second they are born they are headed toward eternal separation from God unless they make a profession of faith. That’s the theology. In practice it works out a bit softer – they have an understanding of the “age of accountability” which is said to be anywhere from age 8 to age 15 (the higher end of this range happens in churches where confirmation is practiced.) So if a child dies before the age of accountability people will comfort each other by talking about this concept – but at the same time, Evangelicals fall exactly in line with the broader Protestant theology that says anyone who has not made a public profession of faith will be damned to hell for all eternity. This is one of the reasons the practice of infant baptism, or pedobaptism, developed. Most Evangelicals don’t practice paedobaptism, but those who do see it in a similar same way that Latter-day Saints see the status of a child born in the covenant – they have a level of protection while they are young and unable to reach up to God. Infant baptism is seen as God reaching down to them before they are able to reach up to him. Catholics (and EO and a few others) are doing something different in paedobaptism, but Evangelicals are basically conferring to their child the same idea that we confer to all children under age 8.

So when an Evangelical learns to give a testimony, and they were born into a church family, it usually says something like: I was born into a church family and didn’t even realize I needed to do something about my faith, but at age 8 (or similar age) I learned that I should invite Jesus into my heart so I did. And now I am much happier and I know I’m going to Heaven when I die. Before, How, Since. Obviously, the people who convert to Evangelicalism later in life have a wider variety of stories depending on their circumstances.

But that’s pretty much where “bearing your testimony” ends for them. It is almost exclusively about how they came to faith and got saved from Hell. An Evangelical is just never going to say, “I have a testimony of the Bible,” or “I have a testimony that this church is true.” That’s not what testimonies are about for them. For them a testimony is the simple story of how they came to know Christ and be adopted as God’s child. This is an aside, but for them the word “adopt” is a huge theme – they don’t see themselves as being born as “children of God” they see themselves with the Devil as their true father, but God adopts them into his family despite how wretched they are. It’s more complicated than that, and I’ve got 2 previous episodes on this topic, so I’ll leave it at that for now. In summary, Evangelical testimonies are about how they “got saved.”

Latter-day Saints on the other hand are likely to say they have a testimony of all kinds of different aspects of faith. And we are taught, pretty consistently, that bearing one’s testimony should be focused on Christ – but we use all kinds of different tools to do that. You might hear someone say, “I have a testimony of repentance and how it lets me see Christ more in my life.”

Also, the mechanism of what a testimony is supposed to be doing is vastly different. For Evangelicals it’s mostly just a public (or semi-public) telling of how they came to be saved (“saved” from hell) and the function is to participate in a public declaration of faith.

Latter-day Saints come at it differently because a different mechanism is being used. For LDS a testimony is talking about how a belief was solidified through the exercise of faith. It’s faith-in-action that results in a deeper faith – called a testimony. For example, a person has faith that God really cares about them. And that faith is good, but maybe a little shaky sometimes. The person goes through an experience where they must put action into that faith – they must act on the fact that God cares about them in this example – and at the end of the process, their belief is built stronger. This is gaining a testimony of something. Their belief is made stronger through the process of trusting in what God has already revealed to them.

And something you will never hear Evangelicals say is, “I don’t really have a testimony of…..this or that.” They’re not going to say, “I don’t know that I really have a testimony of tithing right now.” Or, “My son really needs to develop his testimony of repentance.” For Evangelicals you either have a testimony that you’ve been saved, or you don’t.

How testimonies are expressed is also really different. Evangelicals will express their testimony almost exclusively for trying to convert other people. That’s the whole point – so that the other person can be saved from Hell too. But Latter-day Saints express a testimony for different reasons – certainly missionary work is in there, but we express testimonies in front of our families and loved ones so that they can know how we feel and that more faith and trust in God can be inspired in them too. Evangelicals have very limited opportunities to express a testimony publicly – their worship services just don’t make room for it. While Latter-day Saints are given the opportunity to do so in the church service every few weeks.

Now, Latter-day Saint friends, I know….Fast and Testimony meeting can be a grab-bag where you never know what you’re going to get. And I’m sure everyone listening can think of times where Fast and Testimony meeting got weird. My best 2 examples of this are…1) The time when the police had to be called in the middle of F&T meeting. But that was not nearly as interesting as my very first F&T meeting when I was investigating the church where a very old man went to the podium and talked about how disappointed he was that polygamy has not come back. I was sitting with a friend who just reached over and grabbed my hand and said, “We can talk about this later.” So, yeah, it goes weird sometimes. But I wouldn’t get rid of the practice if I could – and that is because of the mechanism that is driving it. We are able to see how putting faith into action works to bring us closer to Christ. And while we love reading about that in the scriptures, we’re still human and need to see how that is worked out in the lives of other human beings. That does something for us that is encouraging and inspires us toward our own acts of faith.

My biggest goal in telling you all of this, Latter-day Saint friends, is to help you understand that you’re using the word “testimony” differently than Evangelicals use it. “I bear my testimony that….” makes no sense to them. I’m not saying you should avoid that phrase, I actually was really drawn in by that phrase when I was investigating the church. I’m just saying that it might help to have some language for understanding how Evangelicals use that word, and how we’re using it differently. Because the concept of putting faith into action – which results in more faith and a closer relationship with Christ – that’s pretty compelling. But you have to be able to explain what you’re doing to them. If you say, “I have a testimony of having a Prophet to lead our church,” your Evangelical friend is going to mishear that as, “I believe our Prophet is how you gain salvation,” because for them baring a testimony really is only about talking about how you obtained salvation – which isn’t even really a category we talk in.

Shorter episode today – but it’s summer. So. I know some of you are coming to the FAIR conference this week, or you’ll be listening online. Still time to register for online streaming if you want. I think in-person registration is closed by now because they needed to get a head-count for meals. But if you will be there in person please be sure to find me and say Hi. I’d love to meet you. Next week the Come Follow Me readings move into Romans. And I could do a year’s worth of these episodes just on Romans alone. But it will fly by and we’ll just grab the most relevant stuff. See you then.

More Come, Follow Me resources here.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – Acts 22–28 appeared first on FAIR.

Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – Acts 16–21

Mon, 24 Jul 2023 21:51:29 +0200

Evangelical Questions: If you believe the Bible, why do you also need the Book of Mormon?

by Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC

Welcome back to Come Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions. My name is Jennifer Roach and today we’re going to talk about scripture, what is it, how we read it, and more. As you know we’re going through the Come Follow Me readings and addressing common questions that Evangelicals ask about our faith as we go along. Our purpose here is not to fuel debate but to help you understand where your Evangelical friends and family are coming from so that you can have better conversations with them, and perhaps even be able to offer them a bit of our faith in a way they can understand.

All right, I think this is the last week I will be telling you this – you have 1 week left to purchase tickets for the FAIR Conference, August 2-4 in Provo, Utah. Or you can register online to get free streaming access. I haven’t even told you about half the people who will be presenting. But I will tell you about one more that is near and dear to my heart. Avraham Shannon will be speaking about the Book of Moses. If you listened to my conversation story a bunch of episodes ago you might remember that the very first Latter-day Saint scripture I read was the Book of Moses. I can easily tell you today that I had no real idea what I was reading at the time and mostly read it out of curiosity, not submission to the commandment to read scripture. But I was hooked right about from the beginning. Dr. Shannon is a professor at BYU in the religious studies department and he will be presenting some of his research to us. It should be really great. My talk will be on Friday afternoon. I will be doing 2 things….1) Presenting my own original research on rates of abuse. One of the vexing questions in the area of church abuse is: What practices actually have better outcomes for kids? So one way of answering that question is to take an organization where many different churches are involved and take a retrospective look at which churches the abusers are coming from. You might think you know the answer, but I promise you that you will be surprised on several items. The other part of my talk is 2) addressing some of the most frequently asked questions about abuse in a church context like, “Why don’t we require universal background checks?” It will be a fascinating time together.

Okay, so today we’re going to talk about scripture as a concept. We get our jumping off verse from is Acts 17:11:

Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

So what we have here are Jewish people living in Berea which is in modern-day Greece. Paul and his group have come up from Jerusalem into modern-day Turkey and then up into this part of modern-day Greece. It sits just south of modern-day Serbia and right next to Albania. (Geography is important – you can’t understand history without understanding geography. And you can’t understand theology without understanding history.) And when Paul arrives they go to the synagogue to teach the people there. He finds that the Bereans were eager to listen and willing to actually investigate what he was teaching. It’s an interesting point because these were Jews still – so when the verse says they “examined the scriptures to see if what Paul said was true,” what they were examining was not the New Testament, it didn’t exist yet, and even if it had those were not their scriptures. What they were examining was the Old Testament – probably the first 5 books called the Pentateuch. And probably studying the major Prophets as well (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel) as well as the minor Prophets (the 12 small books at the back of the Old Testament.) So, Paul is teaching them something new – about Jesus Christ – and they were able to look in the Old Testament and verify that what he was saying was true.

Now, you know that the Old Testament does not talk much about Jesus Christ directly. And Latter-day Saints will sort of frequently roll their eyes and wonder why we can’t just get back to the good stuff where Jesus is mentioned on just about every page. But these Jews in Berea were able to understand what Paul was saying enough to interpret the Old Testament in a new way. This is the task of all the early Jewish converts of course – they must take the scriptures they love, the Old Testament, and use it to verify that the teachings of the New Testament are true. Most people today – even people who have impressive academic credentials – are unable to see the correspondence between the Old and New testaments. But here, these Jews are doing it. And in doing so, they open themselves up to accepting new scriptures – the ones that were being written during that era and would become the New Testament.

Latter-day Saints would see this as a model or precedent for how people in a standard Christian church today have to look at what’s in the Book of Mormon and compare it to what’s in the New Testament. But right here in the Book of Acts we have this beautiful example of the Berean Jews doing this – and being called noble for doing so.

But things get tricky if you talk about this model this way with Evangelicals. I want to explain why and what their thinking is behind that. Let me use an illustration to talk about it.

My grandparents and great-grandparents were cattle ranchers in California. They had a couple thousand acres and managed herds there. And if you’ve got a big property like that there are a couple ways to do it. You can either make sure you’ve got really, really good fences around every single square inch of the place so that the cows can’t escape. Or, you can let the cows help you out a bit – meaning that if you make sure the cows have access to the resources they want (like a water or food source) they are going to naturally make sure they are able to find their way back to you – you don’t have to force them within the fence, you can kind of let them go where they want, knowing they’re going to come back because they need the water, or whatever. So it’s 2 different philosophies to get a cow to stay where you want it to stay – cage it in, or let it police itself in its own best interest – it can roam all it wants, but it’s going to come back to get what it needs. And our 2 different approaches to scripture are kind of like that.

Evangelicals, all Protestants and Catholics too, have taken the cage-it-in approach. They put some very high fences what is and is not scripture. Now, these fences have moved over time – some books of scripture are in and then later they’re out – but there is always a high fence up. The question they’re trying to answer is something like: How can we make sure we’re protecting the small amount that we’ve been given?

Latter-day Saints take an entirely different approach. Instead of asking how to protect the amount we’ve been given, we ask something like: How can we make sure we’re able to receive anything God has for us? And this is applied to the question of what is – and what is not – scripture.

One of the very best ways to talk about this is to compare what both groups do when an individual wants a direct message from God. And, as always, there is a wide variety of ways Evangelicals deal with this. Most of them, the vast majority of them, would say that God speaks through the Holy Spirit to individuals today and that those words can be trusted in as far as they are understood correctly. But the problem comes if you want to write those words down and treat them like actual messages from God. This can be done sometimes in perhaps the most private of private settings, but very few of them would go around and act like something God told them is on the same level of trustworthiness as scripture. Those would be treated with 2 radically different levels of trustworthiness.

Compare that to how Latter-day Saints think about Patriarchal Blessings. Every Latter-day Saint is entitled to receive a Patriarchal Blessing that is personalized for them, and which they can consider their own personal scripture. These blessings are transcribed and recorded with the church. Latter-day Saints don’t treat these blessings as fortune-telling or step-by-step dictates on exactly what to do, but we do treat them sacredly and as scripture. We consult them throughout our lives and do our best to see them as God being aware of us and our circumstances. They are considered as trustworthy as other scriptures. They have to be understood correctly, and sometimes that takes a bit – but that’s true of any other scripture too.

You can see the 2 different approaches to scripture. Evangelicals have the very best of intentions here. Their sort of locking down what can be considered scripture is their way of making the boundaries very clear about what is out and what is in. They’re not doing this to be controlling or to limit what the people have access to in terms of hearing from God, they’re doing it with the intent of treating scripture with the sacred respect it deserves. Sometimes we Latter-day Saints look at that and wonder: Why wouldn’t they want EVERYTHING God has for them? But that’s not how they think of it. I think they deserve the benefit of the doubt here that their motives for limiting things is good. Latter-day Saints just see it differently – we’re not trying to fence in exactly what God has said with fences that limit what he is able to say. Or at least limit the trustworthiness of things God tells individuals.

And sometimes Latter-day Saints feel frustrated, or perhaps confused, by Evangelicals’ lack of willingness to consider a message God might have for them. And Evangelicals feel frustrated or confused by Latter-day Saint’s willingness to ascribe the word “scripture” to the Book of Mormon (most of them won’t even know what a Patriarchal Blessing is and their heads might explode if they did.) But they look at the Book of Mormon and see that it’s on the outside of the fence they’ve already set up, so it’s hard for them to let it in. I get that. But the reality is that the Bible and the Book of Mormon very much go together. As a complete outsider to the church when I first read the Book of Mormon I saw that very quickly. It can be an interesting conversation to have with someone who is used to scripture being very tightly defined.

Well, that is what I have for you today. Next week we’re on our last week of the Book of Acts and then on to Romans which will be super fun. Go and register for FAIR. I will see you next week.

More Come, Follow Me resources here.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – Acts 16–21 appeared first on FAIR.

By Study and Faith – Episode 4: Logical Fallacies

Thu, 20 Jul 2023 05:41:12 +0200

by Zachary Wright

Introduction

In the last article, I took some time to describe some of the basics of logic, and how to form good arguments. However, it doesn’t take a genius to realize that not all arguments are created equal. For example, when it comes to deductive reasoning, the premises need to support the conclusions in order to be valid. When they don’t, the argument is called “fallacious”, that is, it’s based on poor reasoning. While there is some variety in how someone defines the term “fallacy,” and a massive history behind its usage (1), it’s generally understood that fallacious arguments are simply bad arguments due to either a faulty premise or a lack of important information (2). We’ll get into how that is in a moment, but it almost goes without saying that critical thinkers need the ability to discern the difference between valid and fallacious reasoning. Without being able to parse through the validity of good and bad arguments, critical thinkers are unable to arrive at appropriate conclusions. Consequently, they’re unable to analyze information accurately, and thus cannot maximize their problem-solving efforts. There’s not a ton of background information I need to provide that I haven’t already provided in my previous article, so we’re going to do things a little differently today. For this article, I’m going to list common fallacies and give examples of them in relation to historical and theological topics relating to Latter-day Saints. Let’s get into it.

Logical Fallacies: Thou Shalt Nots

Logical fallacies are best understood as “thou shalt not” commandments of logical thinking. They severely cripple your capacity to make key points and arrive at correct conclusions. Those who have studied Jewish law would know that there are about 613 commandments found within the Law of Moses, with some more famous ones that are given more attention than others (3). While there are not 613 logical fallacies (that I know of), there are many MANY fallacies that have been identified and studied that we don’t have time to go over today. However, we do have time to go over a few more popular/notable ones that inhibit logical reasoning. While I do so, I encourage you to ponder on some similarities that each of these fallacies share. With that brief introduction, let’s begin listing them off.

Ad hominem is an excellent place to start, seeing as it’s both easy to explain, and common to encounter. This fallacy is characterized by the arguer attacking their opponent, rather than attacking the arguments their opponent presents (4). For example, just this last week, I was engaging in classic Facebook debates, when I was called “Hitler” because I wouldn’t allow spam to be posted. This kind of personal attack tries to discredit me by associating me with one of the most evil people ever recorded in history. However, as you can imagine, this doesn’t at all discredit my argument that spam posts contribute little to the actual discussion. This fallacy is unfortunately common in the realms of both political and religious discussion and is done by both members and non-members of the church, so be careful!

In a similar vein to the previous one is the fallacy of faulty motives, or “Argument from motives.” This fallacy seeks to discredit an argument based on the motives of the person making the argument (5). An example of this is when people attack how Joseph Smith presented polygamy. Joseph Smith claimed that the command to practice polygamy came from God (6), but some critics of the church claim that Joseph was looking explicitly to satisfy his own sexual desires (7). Even when we ignore the (many) quotes that come from those involved in Polygamy that tell a different story when taken holistically (8), attacking Joseph’s motives here does nothing to actually address whether or not the command to practice polygamy actually came from God. It also, of course, presumes the ability to read people’s minds, which to my knowledge isn’t possible yet.

An ad-populum fallacy, more commonly known as the “bandwagon fallacy,” is where the arguer assumes that because many people have believed something, it must be true (9). If you’ve heard someone say something like “Everyone’s doing it, so you should too!” or “How could it be possible for so many people to be wrong?” then they’ve committed a bandwagon fallacy. For example, even if thousands of General Christians believe that the concept of biblical inerrancy is true, that doesn’t necessarily make it true. This fallacy should also be avoided when it comes to scholarship. While a consensus of scholars may provide a lot of confidence, the consensus of scholars alone does not automatically entail that something is true.

Circular reasoning, also known as “begging the question,” is a fallacy that is characterized by assumptions of the conclusion’s truthfulness being found in the premises of the argument (10). That may sound confusing, and to be fair, it’s not just characterized that way, but it’s easier to show than it is to tell. Consider this discussion (based on an actual argument I’ve read):

Question: Why is the Bible inspired scripture?

Answer: Because the Bible is inspired, and it follows the patterns of scripture outlined in the Bible.

You see the problem here? The conclusion states that “The Bible is the word of God because the Bible says that it’s the word of God.” The problem here is that deductive reasoning necessitates that the premises support the conclusion, not the other way around. The conclusion can’t be used to prove the conclusion…that’s why arguments like this “beg the question” of why the conclusion is true.

The Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, also known as the “false cause” or “Texas marksman” fallacy, is a bit tricky to explain, but it’s committed when the arguer tries to make connections where a connection does not exist (11). It gets its name from the idea that if a gunslinger shoots a wall 100 times without looking, there are bound to be a few clusters of bullet holes closer together. The gunslinger could then paint the wall, putting the cluster in the bullseye, and declare himself to be the greatest shot in the west, despite the fact that he wasn’t aiming there. With so many data points out there (bullet holes), it’s natural to find some similarities, but those similarities don’t necessarily mean that there is a connection. For example, many people have made connections between The Book of Mormon and other books like View of the Hebrews or The Late War, due to certain similarities that can be drawn. However, this doesn’t prove that Joseph Smith used these texts to fabricate the Book of Mormon; and in fact, certain textual evidence found within the Book of Mormon helps to challenge the assumption that The Book of Mormon is a 19th-century pseudo-archaic text (12). While this shouldn’t dissuade you from making observations and connections, critical thinkers need to keep an eye out for the possibility that some things just happen by chance.

The “No True Scotsman” fallacy is an appeal to purity: that is, it’s an appeal to a specific definition of a term as being authoritative over all others (13). The name comes from the example given by Anthony Flew where he says “No true Scotsman puts brown sugar in porridge.” In other words, the true members of X group don’t do/believe Y; appealing to a strict, limited definition of X. Most members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are familiar with this argument in terms of the debate of “Are church members Christians?” I remember being told several times on my mission that real Christians “believe the trinity” or “test modern revelation (Like the Book of Mormon) by prior revelation (The Bible)” (14). However, this kind of shifting of definitions does little to prove anyone’s point, and the arguer would need to demonstrate how their definition of “Christians” is superior to that of the church’s definition.

Another important fallacy to cover is that of the “Either/or” fallacy, also referred to as a “False Dichotomy/Dilemma” or “Black and White” fallacy (15). This is committed when the arguer sets up a false binary in a discussion, reducing the outcome to only two options. An example of this in relation to LDS theology would be someone being told to either denounce The Family: A Proclamation to the World or admit that they hate gay people. However, critical thinkers would be able to state that there are a plethora of ways to support the proclamation without hating people who have same-sex attraction. The arguer would need to prove first that those are the only two options before they can support the conclusion that those are the only two options.

The argument to moderation fallacy, also known as the “false compromise” fallacy, is kind of the opposite of the previous one (16). This happens when one asserts that a position is correct or is an ideal answer simply because it’s a compromise between two extremes. An example of this would be someone saying something like “Lots of people think Joseph Smith was a prophet, or he was a fraud, but the truth is that he was just a man that was sincere, but wrong.” However, just because this is a middle position doesn’t prove that the conclusion was true…such conclusions would need to be supported by other premises.

A hasty generalization fallacy is characterized by drawing conclusions about a group of people due to the actions of a few people in that group (17). This would be like someone saying “I found a few missionaries that were rude or ignorant about a given topic, therefore, all missionaries are rude and ignorant”. However, this is making an assumption that would need to be shown about every missionary in order to be accepted as true. After all, the fact that some missionaries don’t know something doesn’t mean that all of them don’t (in fact, quite a few of them know quite a lot!!!). There are a lot more variables at play when it comes to anyone’s education, and hasty generalizations are characterized by their lack of accounting for all of those variables.

The Genetic fallacy, also known as “poisoning the well,” is similar to the ad-hominem fallacy in a way. The genetic fallacy states that an argument is untrustworthy because of the background, education, or goals of the source. A considerable example – pertinent to everyone reading – has to do with FAIR. If I had a nickel for the number of times I’ve heard people discredit an argument because it came from FAIR, I’d have a substantial number of nickels. However, as we learned in the previous article, conclusions are arrived at based on the premises…not the place where the premises came from. Anyone is capable of making good arguments, and dismissing arguments and conclusions because of who they came from is the epitome of bias, and the antithesis of critical thinking.

The Tu Quoque fallacy is one that many people are guilty of, including members of the church. The Tu Quoque fallacy is committed when someone tries to justify the shortcomings of their arguments by pointing out the weaknesses of their opponent’s arguments (19). An example of this would be when someone asks about biblical (or BoM) archaeological evidence, and the other person points out the fact that the Bible (or BoM) has incomplete archaeological records as well. However, those kinds of observations neither support nor protect anyone’s arguments/premises. While we should be open to asking questions, clarifying the positions of others, and evaluating hypocrisy when possible, it’s important to not mistake that as defending our own arguments.

The Slippery Slope fallacy states that one decision will lead to one outcome, then another, and then finally arrive at a conclusion that is preposterous and/or terrible (20). An example of this found in LDS theology is found in the idea of personal revelation. A critic might claim that because we accept the idea of personal revelation, we may be inspired to break our covenants and break the law of chastity, therefore, the idea of personal revelation is bad because it leads to breaking the law of chastity. Putting aside the fact that the spirit would not tell us to break covenants (21), this is a logical fallacy in the sense that personal revelation does not necessitate the idea that we’ll break our covenants. Generally, it’s good practice to avoid large improbabilities and hypotheticals like that in a conversation…critical thinkers should focus on specific behaviors and ideas, and act accordingly.

Special Pleading is a fallacy that refers to instances when an arguer would ask for an exception to the rule to be made in regard to a premise (22). In other words, they “specially plead” that someone or something is an exception to a rule of some kind. An example of this is found in LDS theology, where people state that there were no prophets after Jesus. We’ll then cite that the term “prophets” is used repeatedly to refer to messengers for God in the New Testament and that those prophets are understood to be authoritative and foundational like apostles were (23), to which the critic would reply “that doesn’t count” (24). Asking to change the rules when a premise is shown to be faulty does not make the premise any stronger, and thus does not support the conclusion.

Equivocation fallacies are characterized by using the same term in different ways, that is, changing the meaning of a term partway through the argument (25). An example of this found in LDS theological discussion is when people are talking about “faith.”

P1: The Bible teaches we’re saved by Grace through faith (26)

P2: The LDS church teaches we’re saved by Grace through Faith and Works (27)

Conclusion: The LDS believe differently than the Bible

Now, at first glance, this may seem like a home run for the critics of the church in terms of proving that we disbelieve the Bible. However, what they don’t know is that the definition of “faith” is very different in both of those premises. The term “faith” in P1, according to scholars, is likely to be understood as an allegiance to God (28). However, the term as used in P2 (and by most people in the 19th century) means something more like “belief” (29). When you put both of those terms in their proper context, you come to find out that they’re not saying anything all that much differently. This is a tricky one to spot though, so slow down and keep an eye out for it.

Red Herrings are characterized by bringing up something unrelated, or mostly unrelated, to your point in an attempt to distract from the real issue (30). This fallacy can be characterized in the following conversation:

Critic: Mormons believe that you’re saved “after all you can do” (31), it’s an impossible gospel! Have you done everything you can do?

Member: Well hold on a moment…research shows that the term “After all we can do” really means something more like “In spite of all we do”. Lots of non-members during Joseph’s time used the phrase “After all we can do” to mean “In spite of what we do” (32).

Critic: Well, that doesn’t change the fact that your Book of Mormon affirms the Trinity

As you can see, the topic shifted under the burden of additional scrutiny. The discussion as to whether or not the Book of Mormon teaches Modalistic Trinitarianism is a completely different discussion from the discussion to be had about 2 Nephi 25:23. This attempt to distract from the original topic does nothing to protect or maintain the strength of the original claim.

An erroneous appeal to authority is an equally inappropriate fallacy, and is the flip side of the “poisoning the well fallacy” we talked about earlier. It’s characterized by inappropriately appealing to what something (or more specifically someone) says as being the be-all, end-all thing that proves something is true (33). An example of this fallacy would be a Christian saying that because the Bible outlines a world shaped like a dome (34), we should believe it too because they’re authorities. Unfortunately, similar to the well-poisoning fallacy, just because the argument came from a specific source, even an authoritative one, doesn’t mean that source is right. While we should be willing to note the extensive time and effort that professors, researchers, historians, and other authorities have put into their fields of study, we need to remember that arguments are good or bad based on their premises and information…not based on who made them.

A loaded question is one that has no correct answer: that is, no matter what the answer to the question is, there is an unjustified or controversial assumption baked into the question (35). An example of this is found in a hypothetical question that a critic of the church asked, “Have you always been a brainwashed member of that cult?” No matter how you answer that question, it’s already making the assumption that first, you’re brainwashed, and second, that the church is a “cult” (36). Both of those would need to be demonstrated in order for the argument to be valid. Sometimes loaded questions can be methods of disguising ad-hominem attacks too, so keep an eye out for that.

The Gish Gallop fallacy gets its name from a skilled young earth creationist debater named Duane Gish. His style of debate included long lists of points, and thus the fallacy named after him is characterized by attempting to bury the arguer’s opponents in many different (and mostly not very good) claims, sources, and arguments (37). The assumption here is that it takes far less time to make a claim than it does to disprove a claim. One of the devious things about this fallacy is that even if they make 100 arguments, and you’re able to successfully refute 99 of them, the critic can point to the one you weren’t able to refute, and “claim victory” (it’s difficult to refute every argument, regardless of strength, during a formalized time-delineated debate). A very popular example of this right now in LDS culture is the CES letter, written by Jeremy Runnells. Despite the fact that the claims made in the letter have been addressed (and debunked) over and over again (38), the CES letter’s tactic of presenting dozens and dozens of arguments makes it difficult for the inexperienced reader to parse through all the information. The Gish Gallop is fallacious in nature because the strength of the tactic isn’t based on the premises itself: instead, it’s based on the fact that the arguer is manipulating the circumstances around the debate and discussion, rather than focusing on the specific arguments/premises itself.

The perfectionist fallacy describes an instance where a solution to a problem is rejected because it doesn’t solve the problem perfectly (39). As those who are familiar with LDS history and theology know, this is a common fallacy used against prophets. In LDS theology, prophets are used to fill the role or “solve the problem” of testifying of Jesus Christ, and have authority from God to teach us about him (40). However, as per our theology, they’re not perfect (41). However, just because they’re not perfect doesn’t mean that they don’t accomplish their job, or consistently testify of Jesus Christ’s divinity. Pointing out the fact that prophets aren’t perfect doesn’t change the fact that prophets help solve the problem of bridging the gap that exists between God and us.

“Shifting goalposts” is a fallacy that’s similar to “Special pleading.” It’s characterized by changing the complaint in such a way as to narrow the question so it can’t be answered, or so that an original answer is no longer included (42). An example of this found in LDS apologetics refers to archaeological evidence about the Book of Mormon. Consider the following conversation:

Critic: There is no archaeological evidence that supports the Book of Mormon

Member: That’s not really true. Putting aside the fact that lots of things that were considered problematic in the Book of Mormon have now been verified by modern science (such as the use of metal plates used to keep records in the Middle East), there’s also discussion about places like NHM region, which matches the description of Nahom in the Book of Mormon. Does that not count?

Critic: Well that doesn’t account for the fact that there’s no archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon found in the New World. For example, do you know where Zarahemla is?

You can see how the complaint shifted from “all archaeological evidence” to “New world archaeological evidence for BoM cities.” Such attempts are used to evade the fact that the points were defeated and do nothing to protect the premises found in the original criticism, change the kind of answer that needs to be given, and are consequently found to be fallacious.

An Appeal to Nature fallacy is a type of “erroneous appeal to authority” fallacy, in which nature is set as the ultimate standard of right and wrong. In other words, an appeal to nature states that because a behavior/observation is found in nature, it must consequently be a good thing (43). An example of this is often found in LGBTQ+ discussions. Many proponents of LGBTQ+ relationships will point to instances where different species of animals engage in homosexual activity in order to show that homosexual activity is morally acceptable (44). However, this point presupposes that Nature is the highest moral authority, which would need to be demonstrated.

An Appeal to ignorance, simply put, is a claim that because there is no evidence to the contrary, something must be true, or because something has never been proven true, it must be false. An example of this given by the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy is “Nobody has ever proved to me there’s a God, so I know there is no God.” (45). This is also found in reference to exclusively LDS theology when it comes to things like Book of Mormon archaeology or DNA in the Book of Mormon. Just because we don’t know where the city of Zarahemla is doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist (46). While we should always be willing to look for new information and use critical thinking skills to evaluate the possible validity of claims, we should be wary of saying that because we don’t know something, it therefore definitively exists or does not exist.

One fallacy that I find to be particularly devious is gaslighting. Based on the 1944 film Gaslight, this fallacy is characterized by attempting to call into question the sanity of the arguer’s opponent by challenging their experience, or by distorting established facts (47). For example, I remember being in a discussion with someone and me explaining to them that Joseph taught about the concept of a council of gods, and citing the sources where he made that claim (48). The person I was debating with promptly replied, “No, he didn’t talk about it there!” Admittedly, I was thrown for a loop; going over my sources again, double-checking each of my points – based on the fear that I was missing something. I later found that Joseph Smith did, in fact, affirm that there was a council of gods, as per my cited source, but it was already too late…the tactic had succeeded in derailing my conversation. I don’t know if this was intentional or not, but in reality, gaslighting can be either purposeful or unintentional (49). Gaslighting doesn’t actually disprove anyone’s premises, making it as fallacious as it is manipulative.

An unfalsifiable claim is somewhat tricky to deal with and employ, due to its limited context. Unfalsifiable claims are fallacies found in scientific discussions where claims that cannot be verified are made (50). This is most commonly used in discussions about God, where for instance, one person may say that something happened because God made it happen. This is unfalsifiable because we have no way to objectively prove that God did or didn’t do something, at least using scientific methods. I’ve found a lot of discussions about this to be somewhat futile for just this reason. It’s equally unfalsifiable to say that “X thing happened because of God” as it is to say that “God can’t exist, because the universe doesn’t need God to function.” We can’t prove either of those things objectively as it stands, so we must find other ways to talk about God’s existence or non-existence.

Finally, we have the fallacy fallacy, the great equalizer of all the different fallacies. This fallacy states that even if fallacious reasoning is used, the proposed conclusion may still be true (51). For example, and in the spirit of the previous fallacy about unfalsifiability, even if we concede that a belief in God is unfalsifiable, the mere fact that a fallacy is used doesn’t make it impossible that a God exists. This is why Critical thinking is so important: We have to be willing to understand what our assumptions are, and limit the amount of fallacies we employ, but realize that sometimes, fallacies exist in our thinking and in ideological discussion that just can’t be understood or traversed right now.

Conclusion

In conclusion, that was a lot of material to cover, and there are far more fallacies that have been unmentioned here that deserve serious attention. However, the fallacies we’ve discussed today are common enough that mentioning them to LDS Critical thinkers is useful. While there is a limit to how fallacies can help you, they can serve as guidelines for evaluating information. Review these often, and see if you can practice identifying them in both religious and non-religious contexts. As you do so, I promise that you’ll be able to figure out how to parse through information more effectively, and more often avoid conclusions that are inaccurate. Then, you can keep solving problems, becoming a more informed and decisive critical thinker. As long as we act with charity, and the pure love of Christ (52), we can all become the kind of thinkers, and believers, God wants us to be.

References:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/
https://iep.utm.edu/fallacy/
https://www.jmu.edu/dukehallgallery/exhibitions-past-2018-2019/the-613-mitzvot.shtml
https://owl.excelsior.edu/argument-and-critical-thinking/logical-fallacies/logical-fallacies-ad-hominem/
https://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/engl1311/fallacies.htm
D&C 132
https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Question:_Did_Joseph_Smith_institute_polygamy_because_he_had_a_%22voracious_sexual_appetite%22%3F
Ulrich, L. T. (2017). A house full of females: plural marriage and women’s rights in early Mormonism, 1835-1870. First Edition. New York, Alfred A. Knopf. for a more detailed, historical analysis of this issue
https://writingcenter.kennesaw.edu/oer/argument_and_rhetorical/logical_fallacies.php
https://psychology.northwestern.edu/documents/faculty-publications/rips-circular-reasoning.pdf
https://dokumen.pub/standard-deviations-flawed-assumptions-tortured-data-and-other-ways-to-lie-with-statistics-9780715649145-9780715649732-9780715649749-9780715649756-0715649744-0715649736-0715649752.html
Is the Book of Mormon a Pseudo-Archaic Text? | The Interpreter Foundation, see also Spackman, Ben (2006) “Negative Questions in the Book of Mormon,” Insights: The Newsletter of the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship: Vol. 26: No. 4, Article 3. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/insights/vol26/iss4/3
https://www.palomar.edu/users/bthompson/No%20True%20Scotsman.html
If you’d like to explore this more, see Are “Mormons” Christian? Gospel Topics Essay; see also Peterson, Daniel C. and Ricks, Stephen D., “Offenders for a Word: How Anti-Mormons Play Word Games to Attack the Latter-Day Saints” (1992). Maxwell Institute Publications. 57. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/mi/57
https://owl.excelsior.edu/argument-and-critical-thinking/logical-fallacies/logical-fallacies-false-dilemma/
https://www.palomar.edu/users/bthompson/False%20Compromise.html
https://owl.excelsior.edu/argument-and-critical-thinking/logical-fallacies/logical-fallacies-hasty-generalization/
https://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/fallacies_list.html
https://www.palomar.edu/users/bthompson/Tu%20Quoque.html
https://www.txst.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Slippery-Slope.html
This requires a bit of explanation. We are to understand that the Holy Ghost is the Holy Spirit of Promise (D&C 88:3), and we know that the the Holy Spirit of Promise must seal upon us our covenants in order for them to be valid (D&C 132:7). It goes almost goes without saying that breaking the covenants would cause them to be invalid, and would be against the will of God/the Spirit, seeing as one of the purposes of the Holy Ghost is to support/seal those ordinances and covenants. This is the basis of my assertion that the spirit will not ask us to break our covenants. This is my understanding of D&C 132:26, and this analysis is seemingly supported by the Preach My Gospel manual when it says “Breaking covenants may remove the sealing [of the Holy Spirit].”
https://iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#SpecialPleading
Acts 13:1, 15:32, Ephesians 2:20, 3:5, etc.
To show how this argument is incorrect, I’ll cite the commentary from the NET Bible found online about Ephesians 2:20 reads the following way

“Because the prophets appear after the mention of the apostles and because they are linked together in 3:5 as recipients of revelation about the church, they are to be regarded not as Old Testament prophets, but as New Testament prophets.”

I’ll also refer to the work of Jeff Lindsay, which you can access here. While Mr. Lindsay is not a theologian by trade (not that his profession would disqualify him from making a good argument), it’s worth noting that his work here has been endorsed by theologians such as Robert Boylan, who cites Lindsay’s article here.)

https://iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#Equivocation
Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 9:30-33
Heber C. Kimball: Salvation By Works (Journal of Discourses), read this in the context of my broader argument.
https://benspackman.com/2019/07/covenant-and-law-grace-works-and-faith/
https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/faith
https://www.txst.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Red-Herring.html
2 Nephi 25:23
https://hcommons.org/deposits/item/hc:43493
https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/fallacies/
https://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/ngier/gre13.htm
https://learn.saylor.org/mod/page/view.php?id=21600
While it’s worth noting that the term “cult” here is used in a derogatory sense, I’m of the opinion that all religions are cults. Where there is a veneration of a being or object, that is “cult” behavior but that’s another article. However, most of the time when the term “cult” is used, especially against members of the church, it’s often used in a derogatory, harmful, loaded sense, hence why I use it in my example
https://blogs.bu.edu/pbokulic/2013/11/18/gish-gallop-fallacy-of-the-day/
For the most up-to-date rebuttal done by FAIR, see Sarah Allen’s CES Response Posts, see also Jim Bennett’s A CES Letter Reply: Faithful Answers For Those Who Doubt
https://iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#Perfectionist
Amos 3:7, Acts 10:43, D&C 1:37-38
Come, Join with Us by Dieter F Uchtdorf; “Lord, I Believe” by Jeffrey R. Holland; God Is at the Helm by M. Russell Ballard
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Moving-the-Goalposts
https://www.palomar.edu/users/bthompson/Naturalistic%20Fallacy.html
It’s worth noting that LDS often fall into the same trap when refuting this fallacy: That because the majority of species have heterosexual relationships, it’s only “natural” and therefore “good” that heterosexual relationships are of God. However, this too appeals to this fallacy, and should be avoided when possible. Just stay away from animal parallels…that’s a good rule of thumb.
https://iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#AppealtoIgnorance
For DNA and the Book of Mormon, one of the best treatments on this Ugo A. Perego’s The Book of Mormon and the Origin of Native Americans from a Maternally Inherited DNA Standpoint – FAIR, as well as the Church’s essay here; as for Book of Mormon Archaeology, consider Matthew Roper’s Time Vindicates the Prophet – FAIR
https://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/engl1311/fallacies.htm
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/site/accounts-of-the-king-follett-sermon; see also Abraham 3 and Abraham 4
https://www.simplypsychology.org/unintentional-gaslighting.html
https://iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#Unfalsifiability
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781119165811.ch20#:
Moroni 7:47

Further Study:

Logical fallacies – FAIR (This is FAIR’s complete guide to logical fallacies, complete with more examples of how they’re used in conversations with church members about LDS theology and history)
FALLACIES: A complete list of logical fallacies in 20 minutes – master list – philosophy (A useful, non-LDS guide to logical fallacies done by a philosophy teacher)
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ (Another Non-LDS collection of fallacies that’s a bit more user-friendly. More comprehensive lists exist though, and are found in the references above)

The post By Study and Faith – Episode 4: Logical Fallacies appeared first on FAIR.

Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – Acts 10–15

Mon, 17 Jul 2023 14:48:45 +0200

Evangelical Questions: Who is – and who is not – a Christian?

by Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC

Welcome back to Come Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions. My name is Jennifer Roach and today we’re going to talk about what being a Christian means. As you know we’re going through the Come Follow Me readings and addressing common questions that Evangelicals ask about our faith as we go along. Our purpose here is not to fuel debate but to help you understand where your Evangelical friends and family are coming from so that you can have better conversations with them, and perhaps even be able to offer them a bit of our faith in a way they can understand.

I will remind you about the FAIR Conference August 2-4 in Provo, Utah. I’ve told you about a lot of the speakers already but I want to tell you about another one who is speaking on a topic near and dear to my heart: The Pathyways program. Brian Ashton is the president of the Pathways program. Pathways, if you don’t know, is a way for adults around the world who have either not started college, or not been successful at college to get a path toward success. One of the things I do in life is teach a remote class for BYU-Idaho and while I don’t teach Pathways students I often have them in my classes after they’ve finished Pathways. And I’ll tell you what, 9 times out of 10 they are more serious students than my non-Pathways students. The year they spend in Pathways really prepares them to do college-level work. When I was 18, I went to “junior” college and it was a disaster. I’d had a lot of trauma in my life by that point and the only support I had was what I was able to cobble together for short amounts of time. Predictably, I failed out of school. I would make a couple other attempts in my early 20’s but just could never get myself to a place where college worked for me. Honestly, I started to believe that I was too dumb for college. It took me into my 30’s before I tried again. My life was stable by then and it worked. I ended up getting 2 Master’s degrees. So today when I look at the people who come up through Pathways I am so happy for them – it’s a program absolutely tailored to the needs of students who couldn’t make the traditional college experience work, but they generally end up being very successful with the high level of support they get.

Okay, so today we’re going to talk about what a Christian actually is. Our scripture is Acts 11:26:

So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.

In the past, we’ve talked about this subject by looking at the traditional Christian Creeds and that’s a fair way to answer this question. Back in 2004 when Larry King interviews President Hinkley this is the answer he gives – that if being a Christian means agreeing to the Creeds 100%, then you wouldn’t call us Christians – but if it means having faith in Christ as he is found in the scriptures, then yes of course we are Christians. And when we’re talking about faith in this way – does the person believe the correct things – we’er talking about Orthodoxy, that is “correct beliefs.” Ortho means “straight” like a straight line. And doxa is “beliefs or opinions.” But being a Christian is not a cognitive exercise that happens only in your mind – it is also how you live your life and the practices you engage in. This is “orthopraxy.” The “praxy” here means “conduct” in both the ethical and liturgical sense. That’s the way we’re going to talk about the question this time. It’s not that correct belief doesn’t matter, it does, but you need both correct beliefs and correct practices. What is a Christian as evaluated by considering: What are correct practices?

I’ll make a mental health analogy here. Most of the time we humans believe that if something is wrong we need to figure it out in our minds or our emotions first – and then we can easily figure out the right way to act. And that’s fine when you can do it – but most people get lost in their own minds and don’t know how to find their way out. They just spool on the same anxiety for decades. We call this “top-down processing” meaning you’re trying to figure it out in your head so that your body can do the right things. But it’s not the only way to make a change in your life. You also can do, “bottom-up” processing which is where you act in a way you believe is right or ethical, and wait for the emotions or thoughts to follow. This is getting at the differences between orthodoxy (beliefs in your head) and orthopraxy (practices you do.)

Let’s look at a historical example of orthopraxy. The Holy Kiss.

Unless you are Eastern Orthodox you probably have little idea of what this means. In some EO churches, not all, they still practice this. During the service, after the scripture readings are complete, the congregation – which is separated by gender, women on one side, men on the other – give each other the kiss of peace. Traditionally this is not cheek-kissing, but mouth-to-mouth short kisses. There are 2 reasons they do this…1) Paul teaches it in the New Testament and tells the believers to greet each other with a kiss. This is the symbol of the love that should be between believers and a reminder that the Holy Spirit is with them. Their highest goal is union with God – that is for humans to grow up to be like their Heavenly Father. 2) The kiss comes right before they ask the non-baptized adults to leave in preparation to take the sacrament. The priest of deacon would shout, “The doors, the doors.” and all non-baptized adults are excused from the room – the moment of the sacrament being considered very private worship. And they don’t want people who don’t understand to be gawking. But they are given this kiss of peace before they leave.

Now, no Protestant or Evangelical church that I know of uses this practice today. Some of them might ask the people in the congregation to turn and greet someone sitting next to them, but they certainly aren’t being asked to kiss that person on the mouth. To our ears, it’s a very odd practice.

But if you study the practice, and really listen to what they’re saying about why they do this, and how it shapes them, it makes a lot of sense in their context. And this same dynamic comes up in discussions between Latter-day Saints and Evangelicals. For the most part, Evangelicals do not understand our beliefs, our orthodoxy. Likewise, they do not understand our practices either – some of our practices sound as odd to them as the Eastern Orthodox Christians practicing the Holy Kiss sounds to us.

So, how do we decide what is actually orthopraxy – what are the right practices? If you’ve been following these episodes you probably already know the answer here. Latter-day Saints have a Prophet who can give a final word. Evangelicals are very independent-minded and they each want to decide for themselves what the correct practices are.

Here is a simple example: Our Latter-day Saint churches have gone through a variety of schedule changes. Most of you know the details of those better than I do. The one I experienced was moving from 3-hour church to 2-hour church. I wasn’t officially a member until after we started 2-hour church but I attended for months while it was still 3 hours. All of our congregations around the world were instructed to make this change and on what date. Evangelicals don’t work that way for lots of reasons, the most basic one of which is that there is no central governing body for them. Some of them might choose to group together into denominations or coalitions, but even then, the denomination isn’t going to prescribe how long church should be. If an Evangelical person is attending a church and that church changes their schedule and the person doesn’t like it, he simply moves to another church. And in most areas of the country, he would have dozens of choices. In their way of thinking this isn’t a problem in the slightest. Latter-day Saints think more collectively. If someone attends outside the boundaries of their assigned ward there has to be a pretty good reason why that is happening. The reason being that we belong together, we shoulder the responsibility of the church together. To voluntarily refuse to worship with your neighbors would cause most Latter-day Saints to wonder what was going on.

You can see why our 2 groups would approach something as simple as the church schedule so differently. Evangelicals would have a hard time understanding why you would want to voluntarily give up your independence and allow someone else and let them decide how your church should be structured. Some of them would be very suspicious and skeptical of such a thing! It can really cause problems in conversation.

But the way out is pretty simple, and honestly, it applies to both groups. Our practice of allowing our leaders to decide details like our church schedule is informed by our beliefs that God expresses his love to us by providing prophets. And our following their teaching (in this example, switching from 3 hours to 2 hours) gives us experience in learning that we can trust their leadership. Of course, Evangelicals would see their version of this the same way. They themselves are their own “prophets” as it were. Each one individually gets to have the final word over what is correct belief and correct practice. Their practice informs their belief and vice versa. All of this is to say….There are reasons why each group does what they do. We get bogged down by rejecting their practices – or them rejecting ours – as “crazy” simply because we don’t understand why they are being done, or what results they are producing. Moving from the “what” to the “why” is a really helpful trick for having conversations where you can understand each other better.

The last part I want to talk about here, and this really is an aside, not the main point, is just to say that moving from the Evangelical system (where the individual gets to be their own authority) to the Latter-day Saint system (where Prophets of God are authorities) is tricky. I’ve been in the church about 5 years and it’s still tricky for me sometimes. And I’ve walked with enough other people who have converted from Evangelicalism to see how it is hard for them too and long-term members don’t always see why. I hope this can help you see the struggle from their point of view and have patience as they learn.

Okay. Next week we’re going to talk about the idea that the Bible contains all truth – and anything else claiming to be revelation from God can’t possibly be such. That will be a fun one. See you then.

More Come, Follow Me resources here.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – Acts 10–15 appeared first on FAIR.

Cornerstone: A FAIR Temple Preparation Podcast – Episode 5: Ceremonial Clothing and Garments with Lisa Ann Thomson

Thu, 13 Jul 2023 03:41:38 +0200

Lisa Ann Thomson joins for this episode to discuss the ceremonial clothing of the temple as well as garments. We cover topics such as what they are, why they are important, and some practical tips for wearing them.

Sacred Temple Clothing: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/temples/sacred-temple-clothing?lang=eng

Jacob Crapo was born and now resides in Las Vegas, Nevada. He served his mission in Upstate New York and was an ordinance worker in the Las Vegas Temple. One of Jacob’s dreams is to help build a temple. He is an electrician by trade but his real passion is helping others access the powers of heaven.

Lisa Ann Thomson is a writer living in Salt Lake City, UT.

The post Cornerstone: A FAIR Temple Preparation Podcast – Episode 5: Ceremonial Clothing and Garments with Lisa Ann Thomson appeared first on FAIR.

Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – Acts 6–9

Mon, 10 Jul 2023 11:05:17 +0200

Evangelical Questions: The Holy Ghost

by Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC

Welcome back to Come Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions. My name is Jennifer Roach and today we’re going to talk about the Holy Ghost. As you know we’re going through the Come Follow Me readings and addressing common questions that Evangelicals ask about our faith as we go along. Our purpose here is not to fuel debate but to help you understand where your Evangelical friends and family are coming from so that you can have better conversations with them, and perhaps even be able to offer them a bit of our faith in a way they can understand.

I will remind you about the FAIR Conference August 2-4 in Provo, Utah. You can buy tickets and come in person, or you can stream online for free. Go to FAIRLatterdaySaints.org to sign up for streaming. Did you know that Don Bradly will be speaking too? Don has an amazing story. First off, he is a proper historian, and if you haven’t read his book on the Lost 116 pages you really should. And Don has been working with Latter-day Saint historical documents his entire career. But what I find most fascinating about him is that he left the church for a good while. On his way out he wrote a letter to his bishop that, in his words, was so severe that when he decided he needed to come back he feared that he would not be allowed based on that letter alone. He tells a touching story of how his bishop welcomes him back by saying something like: This is the Lord’s church and if you’re not allowed to repent here, where would you be allowed? So he rejoins the church and has done lots of amazing work since then including on the Joseph Smith Papers. At FAIR he will be giving a talk about evidence of Joseph Smith’s actual religious sincerity – contra what some critics say that he was a charlatan for money or power. Don has this really great way of explaining some of the truly confusing things that Joseph does in the context of his sincerity. I might be looking forward to Don’s talk more than I am my own.

Okay, so today we’re going to talk about the Holy Ghost. Our text in Come Follow Me is in the early part of the book of Acts and there is a lot going on. As an aside, you know, we’re not covering the narrative of the story here in these episodes. We’re pulling out issues as they come along where there would be interesting inter-faith discussions. But there is so much going on in the story I would just encourage you to listen to some of the other Come Follow Me podcasts that cover that aspect much more in detail. All of the Scripture Central (used to be called Book of Mormon Central) podcasts do this well, and others too. Anyway, the things that are happening in this part of Acts are very much driven by the Holy Ghost. And that’s where we land today.

And we’re going to talk about 2 aspects of this. First, the Gifts of the Spirit, and second, the question of who has the Spirit and how do they listen to what is being said?

Gifts of the Spirit

And here we are going to branch out a bit from the broad Evangelical group we normally talk about. Under the umbrella of “Evangelicals,” there are a number of positions various groups take on the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit. And there is a continuum – on one side are Evangelicals who really barely want to talk about the Spirit, all the way over to the other side that only really ever wants to talk about the Spirit. Evangelicals on the other side that do not like to talk about the Spirit are worried about one thing, and people who want to mostly talk about the Spirit are worried about another. And to be honest, most of the Evangelicals we’ve talked about in this series are on the side where the Spirit just isn’t talked about much. Those folks are worried that relying too much on the Spirit – and not the written scriptures – has a high potential to lead someone astray because of the subjectivity involved. People on the side that really only want to talk about the Spirit are worried that those on the other side have over-intellectualized faith in a way that has been boiled down to mere cognitive assent without any real power behind it. One of the ways Evangelicals talk about this is by talking about Speaking in Tongues, or glossolalia.

There are a lot of Evangelical churches that participate in speaking in tongues, some of the biggest ones are the Assemblies of God. They have 68 million members worldwide and trace their roots back to the Azuza Street revivals around 1910. The Vineyard Churches which have 2500 congregations around the world (they give statistics on congregations, not members.) And lots of smaller groups or independent churches that might have names with, “Holiness” or, “Apostolic” in them, plus lots of others.

And when we say speaking in tongues what we mean is that they will sometimes speak in an unknown language – meaning not any actual language you can study – but an unknown language. And then, usually, someone else in the congregation will give an interpretation of what those words meant. In doing this they are trying to listen for what God might be teaching them through supernatural means.

Now, in our Latter-day Saint church, most people think of “the gift of tongues” as meaning the gift of learning foreign languages proficiently by supernatural means. Speaking in an unknown language is called glossolalia. And speaking in a known language that you do not have proficiency in is called xenoglossia. These are not “gibberish” sounding languages but actual languages that missionaries might teach in. And we have lots of examples of this all throughout our history. But many Latter-day Saints seem surprised to learn that besides practicing xenoglossia – the supernatural learning of unknown languages – the early Saints also practiced glossolalia, the speaking of unknown languages. In fact, at a church conference in 1833 Joseph Smith opens the meeting with prayer and then speaks in tongues, glossolalia, followed by others who do as well. You can read about that incident at the website for the Joseph Smith papers in Documents Vol 2. John Witmer writes a letter that same year talking about how one of their meetings contained singing in tongues. An article on the church’s website LDS.org talks about Elizabeth Ann Whitney singing in tongues. Brigham Young said that speaking in tongues felt Electrifying. The Nauvoo Relief Society Min Book talks about them. Here is a quote from that book, “Councillor Cleveland stated that she many times felt in her heart, what she could not express it in our own language, and as the Prophet had given us liberty to improve the gifts of the gospel in our meetings, and feelings the power resting upon, desired to speak in the gift of tongues; which she did in a powerful manner.”

Now, don’t get the wrong idea and think it was some free-for-all where reason and good teaching could be substituted for speaking in tongues. We also get lots of statements like this one that is in the RS Min Book, but there are plenty of other similar ones spoken by Joseph Smith and others. But the Min Book quote is, “If any have a matter to reveal, let it be in your own tongue. Do not indulge too much in the gift of tongues, or the devil will take advantage of the innocent. You may speak in tongues for your comfort but I lay this down for a rule that if any thing is [p. [40]] is taught by the gift of tongues, it is not to be received for doctrine.” And a short time later Joseph teaches, “As to the gift of tongues, all we can say is, that in this place, we have received it as the ancients did: we wish you, however, to be careful lest in this you be deceived. … Satan will no doubt trouble you about the gift of tongues unless you are careful; you cannot watch him too closely, nor pray too much. May the Lord give you wisdom in all things.”

Around the turn of the century, turning to 1900, a lot of cultural things were happening in the church and in society. Values were shifting away from the supernatural and toward science and order. The Victorian era ends in 1900. This was in all of society, not just in our church. But people were interested in the emergence of a slick modern era (such as it was) and not what felt like ways from the past that might have been a bit embarrassing. By 1904 there is a letter in the Improvement Era recounting the former prominence of speaking in tongues in the LDS Church and lamenting the loss.

So as unusual as this kind of worship sounds to most Latter-day Saints today it was very much practices in the early days of our church and they considered it a very sacred and special thing.

I imagine that talking about that history with an Evangelical friend who practices these gifts of the Spirit or speaking in tongues would be just fascinating.

Okay, on to the other part I want to talk about here…

One of the questions I get from lifelong members a lot is: How is the experience of having the Holy Ghost now compared to before? Sometimes they are surprised to hear that I’ve been able to listen to the Spirit since childhood and have never felt deprived of it. I think there can be a cultural belief among some that people in our church are the only ones who have the Holy Ghost, which certainly is not true, and certainly not what our leaders have taught. But members sometimes think that – and I can understand why.

You might not be aware of this but just recently the Missionary department released a new version of Preach My Gospel. I was delighted to see this subject come up in one of the changes.

The Old version of Preach My Gospel says…
“We receive the baptism of the Spirit through an ordinance called confirmation. This ordinance is performed by one or more priesthood holders who lay their hands upon our head. First they confirm us a member of the Church, and then they confer the gift of the Holy Ghost upon us. This is the same ordinance that is referenced in the New Testament and the Book of Mormon.”

And all of this is correct. None of this truth has changed. However, the new version of Preach my Gospel brings an additional layer of clarity. It says, “The Power of the Holy Ghost is the witness that comes to sincere seekers of truth before baptism comes through the power of the Holy Ghost. All people can receive a testimony of Jesus Christ and His restored gospel through the power of the Holy Ghost. The Gift of the Holy Ghost: The Prophet Joseph Smith said: ‘There is a difference between the Holy Ghost and the gift of the Holy Ghost. Cornelius received the Holy Ghost before he was baptized, which was the convincing power of God unto him of the truth of the Gospel, but he could not receive the gift of the Holy Ghost until after he was baptized.'”

And this change brings a delightful clarity I think. The Holy Ghost is what makes anyone anywhere tune their heart toward God’s truth, even the tiniest bit. So of course he is active in people who have not yet made a profession of faith.

More Come, Follow Me resources here.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – Acts 6–9 appeared first on FAIR.

By Study and Faith – Episode 3: Logic

Thu, 06 Jul 2023 04:14:26 +0200

by Zachary Wright

Introduction

If you’ve ever listened to an argument, you’ve probably heard someone angrily protest to the other “You’re not being logical!”, or something to that effect. When I heard the term “logic” previously, I usually thought of things like “facts” or “math,” or even more vague ideas like “things that make sense.” This is mostly true, but there’s a bit more to it than that – and that “bit more” is what we’re going to talk about today. Logic, at its core, is a methodology for creating and evaluating arguments (1). Of course, when I say “arguments” I don’t mean shouting matches like the one in the previous example, rather, I mean “a reason given for or against a matter under discussion” (2). We make these kinds of arguments daily: at work, at home, and even in church. You see, we as people run into problems, and have to make decisions all the time to survive, maintain relationships, and accomplish the tasks we set for ourselves. As critical thinkers, it’s important to understand what “logic” is, because logic is key in helping us convince other people of our ideas, evaluate the arguments of others, and can help us make those decisions based on the information we have obtained (like from the good sources we learned to evaluate in our last article). No matter who you are, logic can help you accomplish your goals, make informed decisions, and be the kind of people God wants us to be. That being said, there is a lot of information to cover. First, we’re going to be talking about the history and basics of logic, then we’re going to talk about how to make a logical argument, then finally we’ll talk about the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning. Let’s begin.

Logic: Terms and Tomatoes

The roots of logic trace back to Greek philosophers, specifically Aristotle. Most of you watching have probably heard of him at some point in your educational lives, but suffice it to say that he lived through a LOT of significant Greek history. For example, he studied at Plato’s (another very important philosopher you’ve probably heard of) academy for 20 years (3) and also got to see Greece transition from being a Republic to being an empire under Alexander the Great (whom Aristotle personally tutored) (4). More important to our discussion today, though, is the fact that Aristotle is one of the forefathers of modern logic as we now understand it. As one website put it, “Aristotle’s logic, especially his theory of syllogism, has had an unparalleled influence on the history of Western thought.” (5) As I explain what Aristotelian logic is, you’ll probably begin to understand why; but first let’s take some time to build the foundations of logic by defining some terms.

Now, there are a lot of explanations of logic out there, and a lot of them have some pretty complicated figures and materials if you don’t look at them carefully. Here are some things that we can say though: Logic is based chiefly on propositions. Consider the following synopsis from British Philosopher A.C. Grayling:

“Aristotle took it that the fundamental unit of logical interest is the proposition, the ‘what is said’ by an utterance, this ‘what is said’ being either true or false.” (6)

Okay, that’s easy enough…Aristotle focused on what each claim was actually saying, and what the parts of a claim are. What are the parts of a claim? Well, that’s where tomatoes come in handy. I’m personally not super fond of tomatoes in their raw form, but it’s actually pretty easy to describe tomatoes, especially ones like this:

Ignoring the stems and seeds, if I were to say “The tomato is red,” that would be a proposition. A proposition can be a singular sentence, or expressed in multiple sentences. For example, if I were to say “The tomato is red” and “The redness quality is shown by the tomato,” those two sentences would share the same proposition: in other words, they make the same claim. I borrow this description from Grayling’s book again, where he makes the same point using “white” and “snowflakes.” (6) Easy, right?

Next, we need to talk about the subject phrase and predicate/verb phrase (7). The subject is the chief noun that’s being discussed or described by the predicate. In our statement “the tomato is red,” the subject phrase would be “the tomato,” and the predicate phrase would be “is red.” As you can see, the subject is described by the predicate phrase. Try playing around with descriptions of things in your head, and identify the subjects and predicates of each proposition or statement you make.

Next, we have universal/particular propositions (8), and affirmative/negative propositions (9). This part is a little more self-explanatory: universal/specific propositions have qualifiers that describe the subject, and affirmative/negative propositions have qualifiers found in the predicate. Let’s explore what that looks like for a moment. A universal proposition is one that explains that all of the subjects have a specific predicate. For our tomato example, it would be like saying “all tomatoes are red,” not just “some tomatoes are red.” Particular propositions are the opposite – they just refer to specific subjects, very much like our example of “the/this tomato is red.” Not all the tomatoes are red…just this one. Affirmative and negative propositions describe subjects as having (or not having) specific characteristics or qualities. “All tomatoes are red” would be a universal affirmative proposition, seeing as it affirms that all of the subject does have a specific description. The proposition “all tomatoes are not red” would be a universal negative proposition, as it’s negating the idea that the subject has the predicate’s description. Consider this example here about birds (10):

In this chart talking about propositions about birds, “A” describes a universal affirmative proposition, “E” is a universal negative proposition, “I” describes a particular affirmative proposition, and “O” describes a particular negative proposition. You can do a decent amount with propositions like this, but there are a few more things we need to go over as we build our logical foundation.

We’ve already touched on “quantity” (universal/particular) and “quality” (affirmative/negative) classifications, but there are a few more that might be useful to discuss before we learn how to build an argument. Grayling states that Aristotle had several categories that he classified things into when he was looking at propositions (6).

Species: a definition of the essence of a thing. It’s what makes something that something. For our tomato example, it would be “what makes a tomato a tomato.”
Genus: the part of something that’s not unique to some essence, but is shared by others. “A tomato” would be the species, “fruit” would be its genus. Tomatoes are not the only fruit, but they fall in the category of fruit in general.
Difference: what distinguishes one species from another. For example, Tomatoes don’t usually go in fruit salads. Tomatoes are also noticeably nastier than other fruit.
Properties: the characteristics that make up a specific something. Tomatoes have skin on the outside, and are wet, mushy, and have seeds on the inside.
Accident: Basically, a property something has right now, but doesn’t always have. For instance, “The tomato is red, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be.”

To wrap this section up, there are a few things to keep in mind as we continue our discussion about logic and arguments.

First, we need to remember that each proposition/idea can be broken down into subject and predicate phrases, where the subject is the essence/thing, and the predicate is the description of the essence/thing.
Second, we keep in mind that we need to differentiate the number of things the predicate describes (universal vs particular), and also the qualities of the things we’re talking about (affirmative vs negative).
Next, we need to know what category of the subject we’re talking about, namely, whether we’re talking about the species, genus, differences, properties, or accidents of something.

With this baseline information, we’re now ready to explore the basics of making an argument.

Syllogism: The Art of Making an Argument

We’re going to be shifting to the topic of syllogisms. Propositions when used as a part of an argument (not just a mere description), are referred to as “premises,’, and syllogisms are defined as “the simplest sequence of logical premises and conclusions, devised by Aristotle.” (11) In other words, we can use propositions to make arguments and arrive at a conclusion. Consider this example of a syllogism (12).

P1. All A is B

P2. All C is A

Conclusion: All C is B.

We can go back to our tomato example here, too. Let’s just pretend that “A” is “tomatoes”, “B” is “fruit”, and “C” is “cherry tomatoes”. Let’s apply that to our syllogism.

P1. All tomatoes are fruit

P2. All cherry tomatoes are tomatoes

Conclusion: All cherry tomatoes are fruit

Each syllogism has the same kind of makeup. For example, syllogisms always have a collection of premises that are understood and agreed upon as true. In this example, we have two premises, but you can have any number of propositions here if you’d like. Conclusions are also important for every argument based on syllogism, because if we don’t have a conclusion, then all we’re doing is making observations. That’s not a bad thing, mind you: we need to be willing to gain knowledge. However, if we want to make decisions, we need to be able to learn – or, in other words, arrive at conclusions. Just don’t forget to make sure that your premises actually support your conclusion (we’ll talk about Logical Fallacies another day).

In the introduction, I made a syllogistic argument, in a way. It kind of looked like this:

P1. We run into problems

P2. Logic helps solve some problems

Conclusion: We may use logic to help solve some problems

These are super basic examples, but I’m sure you can see how they can be expanded to make more complex arguments. Consider practicing looking at syllogisms in work, at church, or even in just the daily mundane statements of life. These are literally the building blocks of learning and making decisions on a daily basis.

Let’s use an example from church history. In the original 1830 edition of The Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith is labeled as being the “Author and proprietor of the Book of Mormon.” Some critics have asserted that this is actually Joseph Smith admitting to having “authored” The Book of Mormon himself. However, not only does that contradict what Joseph Smith wrote about in the next few pages, but it also ignores the important context of New York publishing laws at the time (13). The argument against the idea that Joseph was claiming to the the “author” in the sense that he made up The Book of Mormon can be summarized in the following syllogism:

P1. Joseph needed to publish The Book of Mormon

P2. To publish The Book of Mormon, he needed to secure a copyright, which involved him labeling himself as “Author and Proprietor” according to New York laws at the time

P3. Translators for the 1824 KJV Bible, claimed to be “authors” of their work for copyright purposes (14)

Conclusion: Joseph labeled himself as the “Author and Proprietor” to publish, and secure copyright for, The Book of Mormon while clarifying throughout his life that he was merely a translator for the texts.

Now, I will caveat this discussion with a warning similar to the one I made in the last article. With people, you can never really be sure what to expect, so it’s generally not a good idea to use universal arguments when dealing with people or people-based subjects…like history or religion. If we believe in the concept of agency, we need to believe in the idea that people may choose to act differently than they previously have. We can observe trends in behavior, but stereotyping and generalizing individuals or groups too much may lead to unnecessary conflict, limit your ability to work with others, and even sometimes lead you to make a wrong conclusion about how someone will act or react to a situation. Critical thinkers should be willing to re-evaluate their arguments and should avoid hasty generalizations whenever possible.

Deductive vs Inductive Reasoning

This actually transitions rather well into the next portion of the discussion. What we’ve discussed so far constitutes what most people refer to as “deductive reasoning,” or a system of proofs where the “premises logically entail its conclusion.” (15) There is one other type of reasoning we should discuss, namely inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning works by making observations, and coming up with conclusions based on grouping together certain things/people. Here’s an example:

P1. Most members of the church are nice
P2. Zach is a member of the church
Conclusion: Therefore, Zach is nice

There’s a bit of a difference here in this argument. With deductive reasoning, if we assume that both P1 and P2 are true, then P3 MUST be true, while with inductive reasoning, P3 is only “likely” true (15). You would have to get to know me personally and make observations to confirm that for yourself. This is why, in most debates and discussions, deductive reasoning is usually stronger than inductive reasoning (more on that in a moment). Even so, in terms of definitions, inductive reasoning is best understood as observing patterns in specific groups and making a prediction based on those patterns.

For those of you who have studied statistics, this kind of thinking should be familiar to you. Observational studies are very closely related to inductive reasoning. For example, consider the following phrase:

“Every raven in a random sample of 3200 ravens is black. This strongly supports the following conclusion: All ravens are black.” (16)

Like with traditional statistics, inductive reasoning can only give you a degree of confidence as to what to expect from individuals who are part of a group. Like I was saying before, even if you’re looking at 1,001 people, and you see a thousand people do the same thing, that makes no guarantee that the last remaining person in that group will do what everyone else does. This is actually really important to us as critical thinkers because we will run into inductive reasoning very often, especially in the realm of politics, personality, and religion (things LDS people have to deal with often). People are complicated, so naturally, those with more subjective ideas will have more inductive reasoning involved, even if inductive reasoning is considered to be “weaker” when compared to deductive reasoning. Even so, there is a use for inductive reasoning. Consider the following:

“In an informal, or inductive, argument, the conclusion may be false even if the premises are true. In other words, whether an inductive argument is good depends on something more than the form of the argument. Therefore, all inductive arguments are invalid, but this does not mean they are bad arguments. Even if an argument is invalid, its premises can increase the probability that its conclusion is true. So, the form of inductive arguments is evaluated in terms of the strength the premises confer on the conclusion, and stronger inductive arguments are preferred to weaker ones” (17)

As we can see, using both inductive and deductive reasoning may help increase the strength of your arguments. As critical thinkers, we should make decisions based on the best evidence available, look at things from different perspectives, and use coherent arguments. As we do so, we’ll be able to make more informed decisions and analyze what other people say in a more effective manner, ultimately progressing on our path toward fulfilling our divine destiny.

Conclusion

In conclusion, we’ve covered a lot of material today – and there’s still so much more that can be said about logic, and the things we can do with it. I recommend that you review this article a few times and take some additional time to study the topics presented in this essay: understanding some of the foundations behind propositions, building your own deductive arguments, and supporting your claims with inductive reasoning. Logic can help you make decisions and strengthen your communication and problem-solving skills. I’ll end with one note of caution though, bringing us back to the beginning of the article. I started by giving an example of a couple of people angrily shouting at each other. While this is definitely a form of argument, I strongly advise against it. As Latter-day Saints, we have an obligation to speak truth, but we also have an obligation to be peacemakers (18), and to avoid contending with anger (19). How we say things can be just as important as what we actually say (20). It’s a difficult line to walk, but as proponents of faith in Jesus Christ, it is our solemn duty to teach and do as He did.

References:

https://www.fecundity.com/codex/forallx.pdf
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/argument
https://iep.utm.edu/aristotle/
https://www.english.hawaii.edu/criticalink/archive/aristotle/life.html
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-logic/
Grayling, A. C. (2019). The History of Philosophy. New York, NY, USA: Penguin Press.
https://www.bu.edu/linguistics/UG/course/lx502/_docs/lx502-predicate%20logic%201.pdf
https://maritain.nd.edu/jmc/etext/logic-37.htm
https://maritain.nd.edu/jmc/etext/logic-35.htm
https://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/prop.html
https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/academic_writing/logic_in_argumentative_writing/using_logic.html
https://www.comm.pitt.edu/reasoning
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/book-of-mormon-1830/1 (Compare this page with this one); See also https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Joseph_Smith_listed_as_author_and_proprietor_of_the_Book_of_Mormon
Smith, Miriam A., and John W. Welch. “Joseph Smith: “Author and Proprietor”.” In Reexploring the Book of Mormon, edited by John W. Welch, 154-157. Provo, UT/Salt Lake City: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies/Deseret Book, 1992.
https://iep.utm.edu/deductive-inductive-arguments/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-inductive/
https://iep.utm.edu/critical-thinking/
https://churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2023/04/47nelson?lang=eng
3 Nephi 11:29-30
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/new-era/2013/03/to-the-point/how-do-i-deal-with-conversations-about-the-gospel; https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/your-wise-brain/202109/why-the-tone-your-voice-makes-such-difference

Further Study:

Introduction to Propositional Logic
https://www.colorado.edu/studentaffairs/2023/03/14/how-talk-others-different-point-view (This talks about how we can talk to each other in an effective way, even when we disagree with those we talk to…a useful skill in argument)
https://iep.utm.edu/aristotle-logic/ (This discusses several of the aspects of Aristotelian logic we talked about today)

The post By Study and Faith – Episode 3: Logic appeared first on FAIR.

Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – Acts 1–5

Mon, 03 Jul 2023 21:16:31 +0200

Evangelical Questions: What IS an Apostle anyway?

by Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC

Welcome back to Come Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions. My name is Jennifer Roach and today we’re going to talk about apostles. As you know we’re going through the Come Follow Me readings and addressing common questions that Evangelicals ask about our faith as we go along. Our purpose here is not to fuel debate but to help you understand where your Evangelical friends and family are coming from so that you can have better conversations with them, and perhaps even be able to offer them a bit of our faith in a way they can understand.

I will remind you about the FAIR conference August 2-4 in Provo, Utah. You can buy tickets and come in person, or you can stream online for free. Go to FAIRLatterdaySaints.org to sign up for streaming. I am speaking on Friday, so you can come hang out with me. But I also want to tell you about a new podcast FAIR has going called, “By Study and Faith.” It’s hosted by an up-and-coming young scholar named Zachary Wright. I met Zach when he was still a missionary and have been impressed with how well he gets what the Disciple-Scholar model is all about. The basic idea of which is that your head and your heart don’t have to be in competition. The scholar makes the disciple better – and the disciple makes the scholar better. He has a few episodes out already and the one on how to evaluate evidences is very good. There are so many areas of evidences that can be explored – this is what apologetics is all about – but you have to have a good understanding of how to evaluate sources or you get off-track pretty easily. And Zach’s video is a great introduction to that topic. So go give him a listen.

Okay, so today we’re going to talk about Apostles. What actually is an Apostle? What makes someone an Apostle? Why do Evangelicals have such a different way of understanding this topic? The Come Follow Me readings are working our way through the New Testament and we’ve arrived at Acts – or Acts of the Apostles. Latter-day Saints and Evangelicals would easily agree that the Apostles mention in the New Testament are true messengers. The word “Apostle” literally means, “messenger” or “one who is sent.” The question becomes, “Who is a true messenger?” In our view, a true messenger is one who helps the people know what to do to follow God, to stay true to the instruction they’ve already been given. And a false messenger is one who leads the people astray, burdens them, exploits them.

Why wasn’t the apostleship passed down?

Often Latter-day Saints wonder with something like, “Maybe the Apostles forgot to pass it down?” Or, “Maybe they didn’t know they were supposed to?” As if the Apostles all died without ever trying. So this is not the common understanding for Latter-day Saints, but Peter actually does pass on his authority. He ordains Linus to follow in his place. Linus ordains Anacletus who ordains Clement 1. We use the word “Pope” to describe this role today, but what they’re doing is handing down authority to act in God’s name. My thinking is that they did try to pass it down. But there is a difference between passing it down and having that priesthood honored and respected. I know men in the church, and you probably do too, who appear to be “priesthood holders in name only.” They’ve been ordained to the priesthood – but they do not bear it in any recognizable way. If you follow the story of what happens to the generations that follow after Peter, you can see how this plays out – fast-forward to the year 950 and we get Pope John the 12th. He’s ordained as Pope at age 18 and things pretty much play out how you’d expect they would if a hormonal teenage boy was in charge of the church.

Evangelicals don’t disagree with this storyline. They would call Pope John the 12th a bad example of priesthood too.

Evangelical View

The Evangelicals certainly can talk about how they see the original apostles as being the only ones, and they have verses they use to explain that. But more likely their view can be summed up by saying that Apostles are no longer needed because we have the Bible and the Spirit to listen to.

If you’ve listened to very many of these episodes that won’t feel surprising or non-sequitur to you. Evangelicals are very focused on the importance of the Bible and are very confident in their ability to interpret it correctly. It’s a very anti-Catholic stand of, “I can interpret this on my own and don’t need an authority to help me do so.” There’s a theological level understanding (their biblical evidence that no new apostles are needed) but there is also a cultural level understanding that says each person is charged with being their own Apostle, as it were. They are the ones who must decide what is true, how to interpret it, and how to apply it. The idea of, “true messengers,” isn’t really a category for them. Evangelical leaders, pastors, and others are only “true’ to the degree that the individual agrees with them. It’s probably easy for Latter-day Saints to see all the ways in which this can go wrong, but if we’re looking for the best version of Evangelicals on this they’re doing it because they’re very worried that someone might corrupt what has been handed down. So they only can trust themselves, and not necessarily what they’re taught.

This is really well illustrated in the story of Rob Bell.

Bell was an Evangelical pastor in Grand Rapids, Michigan. He started a church there in 1999 with the idea that other Evangelical churches had become focused on the wrong things and church should be stripped down to its basic elements: Worship and teaching. 5 years later they have 6,000 members and people around the world were downloading Rob’s sermons – at the height up to 50,000 downloads a week. Bell is very clearly a talented teacher (he was actually an adjunct at my Divinity School and I took homiletics from him, which was a wild class.) He writes a book, makes a video series with a huge following, goes on a speaking tour. He’s basically one of the hottest things in the Evangelical world at that moment in time. He’s 30 years old and struggling in all the ways that you might imagine a 30-year-old would struggle who has been shot to that kind of fame. But he’s created this huge empire that now employs hundreds of people and thousands of people are relying on him for spiritual guidance. And he’s wildly successful at it. People love him.

But in 2011 he writes a book that pushes against the traditional beliefs of Evangelicals that those who have not made an profession of faith in this life will be tortured in Hell for eternity. Honestly, the book doesn’t even push that hard. In our church we have a full-blown theology about how that isn’t true, and in Bell’s book he just gives some pushback to it. But people turn on him in an instant. The book was released in March of 2011 and by November that year he was forced out. He’s the leader (and founder) of this huge church, but the people he’s leading don’t agree with his new book (I would actually say he gets a lot of things right in that book) and he’s no longer considered a worthy teacher. This is the epitome of why Evangelicals don’t accept Apostles. Evangelicals generally love, and sometimes worship, their leaders – until that leader says something they don’t like or don’t agree with and then they’re canceled as soon as possible. The individual Evangelical is the one who decides what is true, and which new ideas are worthy of being considered. If you remember many episodes back we talked about their fierce independent streak. This is how that streak comes out when we’re talking about Apostles.

So, how do you talk with your Evangelical friends or family about this in any helpful kind of way? Their worry is that by following an Apostle we Latter-day Saints are giving up our autonomy. Unfortunately, there are some portrayals in the media that feed into this -the idea that Latter-day Saints are only allowed to think or read certain things and can never have questions, or never take our time to come to a testimony of certain things. In the realm of church culture, not theology, Evangelicals don’t have a very well-developed idea about, “developing a testimony” of something benign true – at least its not nearly as well-developed culturally as it is for Latter-day Saints. Evangelicals are never going to use the phrase, “I know my church is true.” That’s just not in their culture – it would require them to give up the independent spirit of, “I am the final authority.” A conversation about why you have a testimony of certain things would probably really resonate with them.

Okay, shorter episode today – but it makes up for all the other times when I’ve kept you long after class should have been over! Come back next week and we’re talking about the Holy Ghost. See you then.

More Come, Follow Me resources here.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – Acts 1–5 appeared first on FAIR.

Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – Matthew 28; Mark 16; Luke 24; John 20–21

Mon, 26 Jun 2023 21:09:30 +0200

Evangelical Questions: Baptism for the Dead

by Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC

I will remind you about the FAIR Conference August 2-4 in Provo, Utah. You can buy tickets and come in person, or you can stream online for free. Go to FAIRLatterdaySaints.org to sign up for streaming. I am speaking on Friday – get this – in between Keith Erekson (Director of Historical Research for the church) and Brant Gardner who has written more books on church history than a normal person will read in their lifetime. So I’m feeling pretty lucky.

Today we’re going to talk more about baptism. We will jump off of Matthew 28:19:

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.

We covered baptism in a couple of the older episodes of this show in terms of authority to baptize. But today we’re going to talk about the Latter-day Saint practice of baptism for the dead.

First, I will tell you my understanding of the practice before I knew much about the church. I’m sure you’ve heard people say this before, but feel free to snicker anyway. I had heard of the practice as a child, and I don’t know if this was told to me, or if I interred it on my own, but my understanding was that this meant an actual dead body was being dunked under the water. I tried to work out how this might happen for people who had been long dead becaue it didn’t seem likely that they were digging up dead bodies and the best I could do was liken it to the Catholic practice of “relics.” In casual vocabulary we use the word “relic” to mean any old object from another era, but the technical religious definition of it is that it’s a bone, or bone fragment, from someone who was considered a Saint. For example, you can go to many of the Cathedrals in Eurpose and see their relics on display – and they’re usually small shadow-boxes with a very small bone inside. So, I figured maybe somehow “baptism for the dead” was baptizing relics. I don’t know, that’s the best I could come up with. And as crazy as this explanation sounds to Latter-day Saint ears you have to understand that I was a very religiously curious child and teenager, and as soon as I was an adult I was reading every theology book I could get access to – so it’s not like I was uninterested in figuring out how things worked. And if I – a weird religious kid who grew up into a weird religious adult – couldn’t quite work it out, then you can be sure other people have odd understandings of this practice too. Maybe theirs go odd in a different direction – mind went odd in a very concrete way – but I’ve met very few non-LDS people who can clearly articulate what the point of baptism for the dead is. All that to say, we should give our Evangelical friends a break on this one when they don’t understand it very well.

So we’re going to look at the main Evangelicals (and others) have understood, or misunderstood, what is happening in baptism for the dead as a way of helping you see a better path for this conversation.

Universalism

One of the ways they misunderstand this is that they think we are saying: God has no criteria for salvation. If everyone – even dead people who had never trusted in Christ – can be saved, isn’t this Universalism? They would cite something like John 3:5, “except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” The problem the Evangeliclas rightly point out here is that traditionally God is either Holy and has requirements to be in his presence, or he is merciful and allows everyone to be saved without any requirements, and there isn’t much in between. This was a real puzzle that needs to be solved. Either God is a monster who damns people to hell even if they never had an actual chance to accept him – or he has a path for everyone to meet the requirements to be in his presence. Before Joseph Smith puts all of this together no one had figured out a way for God to be both holy AND mercifully fair to people who had not accepted him.

So here is some timeline of how God reveals this to Joesph a tiny bit at a time. In 1836 he has his vision where he sees his brother Alvin in the Celestial Kingdom despite never having been baptized (this is D&C 137) – and in 1840 he preaches for the first time that baptism for the dead is a possibility. But we have to go all the way back to 1831 to see where this started.

In 1832 Joseph gets the vision that we now call D&C 76 where he was taught that there are different pasts of Heaven appropriate to the faithfulness of different people. It’s not a binary system of either Heaven or Hell and he starts to understand the requirements for these different areas. I’ll quote from the very best article on this topic, Ryan Tobler’s, “Saviors on Mount Zion,” in the 2013 Journal of Mormon History. He says, “Seemingly mindful of how messy life on earth could be, the revelation confirmed sentiments previously held by Joseph Smith, that God would expect no more than humankind could give. He had written to his uncle in 1833 that “men will be held accountable for the things which they have and not for the things they have not, and this revelation seemed to bear that doctrine out. Here was a God who looked on the heart and acknowledged extenuating circumstances. A full, celestial salvation was available to everyone with a good heart and righteous desires. God would hold nothing back from those who died unenlightened.” In other words, everyone would be given the chance to understand Jesus’ sacrifice, give their lives to God, and follow his commands – even if they were already dead.

But the question is still left – isn’t this Universalism? Are there no requirements for entrance into Heaven whatsoever and all humans who have ever lived go there? Up until this point in history the revelation that Joseph had received hinted at the idea that there was a way through this problem, but it had not been spelled out yet. Joseph was having the principles laid out for him, but he had not yet been given a revelation that put them all together – that doesn’t come until Joseph first teaches about it in 1840. But even before that we start to get some hints.

Again from the same article by Tobler we get, “In an editorial Q&A in the Elders’ Journal, a Church-owned newspaper, he (Joseph) responded to a question about the fate of those who had died without embracing Mormonism. “If Mormonism be true,” asked the inquiry, “what of all those who died without baptism?” The editorial offered a new and suggestive response. “All those who have not had an opportunity of hearing the Gospel, and being administered unto by an inspired man in the flesh,” it said, “must have it hereafter, before they can be finally judged.” It was a reply that opened another dimension of possibilities, since it appeared to extend the scope of human action beyond the grave. If not only gospel instruction, but the “administration” of saving ordinances were somehow available in the afterlife, the shape of God’s designs for saving the dead changed substantially.

So, Latter-day Saints, I know that doesn’t sound shocking to your ears. You’re probably wondering why I’m spelling out what you already know so well….but this is the first time in history where there is a possibility that God can be BOTH holy and fair. It avoids the problem of Universalism which says there are no requirements whatsoever – all are saved without ever doing or accepting anything, and a strict reformed teaching that says: If you don’t have the opportunity to accept Christ before you die, you are out of luck forever because God has strict requirements. The revelations given to Joseph about baptism for the dead solve that problem.

Though Evangelicals are still saying, Wait, not so fast. And the problem they raise here is about agency.

Agency

Their worry – and you can understand it – is that if a member of the church is baptized on behalf of a deceased relative today isn’t that taking away the agency of that person? If you get baptized for them today they’re being allowed to bypass the requirements for agreeing to this whole process. But of course we believe that the dead still have a choice. They can still choose to accept the work done for them – and to what degree they will accept it. Evangelicals will often wonder, “Well, who wouldn’t accept it? If you stand someone on the cliff looking down into Hell, who isn’t going to accept an offer of salvation?” But that’s a very Protestant way of thinking about Heaven. Without Josephs’s 1832 revelation about the various parts of Heaven for the people who accept (and agree to live by) various covenants then none of the work for deceased relatives makes sense – the Evangelicals would be right, anyone would choose Heaven if Hell were placed right in front of them. Instead, the Latter-day Saint conceptualization of this is that each person gets to choose exactly what covenants they want to live by. And yes, living by covenants comes with blessings that are also given, but those who choose to live without the restrictive parts of covenants are not dangled over Hell asking if they want to be saved. They’re being asked: How close to you want to live to God, knowing that there are requirements for holiness placed upon those who want to live closer to him.

They don’t believe in baptism for the dead because they believe the dead who did not place their trust in Christ (even if they had never heard of Christ) go directly to Hell with no chance of ever stopping the eternal torment. So right from the get-go they have a very different version of what is happening. One of the thoughts that kept coming to me when I was taking lessons to join our church was: I never thought I had a choice of what to believe as far as eternity goes. But the idea that God punishes people for eternity, even when they had never heard of him, is cruel and offensive. If I get a choice about what to believe I want to believe the thing that most seems like it is consistent with the character of God – that everyone will get a fair chance.

How our different views on when holiness matters come into play

Now, Evangelicals do something interesting right here. They make a very similar argument that we make about temples. Let me explain. We’re both working with the same ingredients, as it were, but we’re baking very different cakes. Those ingredients are: 1) The problem of sin preventing us from being close to God 2) God’s requirement of holiness 3) The solution of Jesus Christ 4) The need for a physical act to represent a spiritual act – going under the water as death, rising again as Christ rose again. We both agree on the ingredients at play here. But we put them in different order, and it matters.

Evangelicals say 1) the problem of sin 3) the solution of Jesus Christ 4) baptism as symbol of resurrection 2) God requires holiness to get into Heaven – and it is Jesus who provides this holiness ultimately.

Latter-day Saints would agree about this in terms of baptism for living people. But we believe that salvation is available to all, even if they’re dead. So for proxy baptisms, we place things in a different order. 1) the problem of sin 2) the requirement of holiness 3) the solution of Jesus 4) the need for a physical act. It’s that second ingredient “the requirement of holiness” that everything hinges on. Evangelicals view the requirement of holiness as God requiring only holy things in his presence – and what they mean by that is that the only ones allowed into Heaven will be the ones who are holy (because of Christ.) But when we talk about proxy baptisms there is a sense that we are partnering with God to accomplish work for people who can not accomplish it for themselves because they no longer have a physical body with which to accomplish it. Standing in as a proxy requires holiness on our part because it is as if we are standing before God on behalf of this person. Of course, our holiness is Christ’s holiness – it’s not some holiness we pull off on our own. But because we are going to get our own physical bodies involved, holiness is required. I understand why Evangelicals get upset that we want privacy in our temple worship, but the part they’re missing is that this is a, “holiness unto the Lord” issue that we actually agree on – they just apply that standard to holiness after death, and we apply it to helping in the salvation of people who are already dead. We say that temples are, “a place where heaven touches the earth, a place where marvelous blessings are bestowed, and a place where we can feel closer to our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ as we strive to become more like Them.”

No one, not Evangelicals and not Latter-day Saints, are saying that holiness doesn’t matter. We would all say that it does. But they would say – in a sense – that it doesn’t matter until they themselves are dead and will be judged. And at that moment it is required. And we would say that if we want to help our dead loved ones go into the presence of the Lord that our holiness is required now.

Well, that is it for today. Next week we’re talking about, “What makes someone an apostle?” and I think you’ll be fascinated by it. I will see you then.

More Come, Follow Me resources here.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – Matthew 28; Mark 16; Luke 24; John 20–21 appeared first on FAIR.

Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – Matthew 27; Mark 15; Luke 23; John 19

Mon, 19 Jun 2023 16:56:23 +0200

Evangelical Questions: Views on Atonement

by Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC

Welcome back to Come Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions. My name is Jennifer Roach and today we’re going to talk about Atonement Theories. As you know we’re going through the Come Follow Me readings and addressing common questions that Evangelicals ask about our faith as we go along. Our purpose here is not to fuel debate but to help you understand where your Evangelical friends and family are coming from so that you can have better conversations with them, and perhaps even be able to offer them a bit of our faith in a way they can understand.

And this video might be slightly different than some of our other ones where I’m doing a bit more compare and contrast, in this video what I really want to do is help you, Latter-day Saint, to understand what your Evangelical friends are taught about the Atonement.

I will remind you about the FAIR conference August 2-4 in Provo, Utah. You can buy tickets and come in person, or you can stream online for free. Go to FAIRlatterdaysaints.org to sign up for streaming. One of the presentations you will not want to miss is Jenny Reeder talking about the Eliza R. Snow project. I am a huge fan of Jenny’s. She is a PhD historian in the Church History Department. I was at a history conference last weekend where she spoke a few times and she was fantastic. She is a historian’s historian. I am very much looking forward to what she has to say about one of my favorite figures in church history, Eliza Roxy Snow.

We are still in the Gospels and have arrived at the portion dealing with the specifics of the crucifixion. It’s impossible to point to a single verse that summarizes the atonement – and as you will see, that is part of how we arrive at this episode. We’ll start with some history.

100 A.D. At this point it’s been about 60ish years since Jesus’ death and resurrection and he has not returned. Most of the early believers thought he would return in their lifetimes, and he didn’t. There had even been a bit of a sense of, “We don’t need to worry about all the details, or how to pass this stuff down the generations, Jesus is going to come back and it will all be fine.” But that was not Jesus’ plan, so they’re sort of scrambling to figure out how to form a coherent theology out of what is left. Jesus’ apostles are dead by now. Sometimes Latter-day Saints are curious about WHY the truths of Christ were not properly passed down – and this is one of the biggest reasons, in my opinion – they all thought Jesus was coming right back. So now they’re having to think about how to make sense of the story of Jesus in a different way than they were previously doing.

That, “how to make sense of the story of Jesus,” is where the idea of atonement theory comes in. Atonement is about the meaning of Jesus’ death/resurrection as well as the effect it has for humans. Evangelicals – or every more widely Protestants and Catholics – are not saying that they have a theory about Jesus’ atonement as in, “I don’t have proof, just a theory.” They’re using that phrase to describe the various ways of explaining what is happening in the death and resurrection of Jesus. The first guy who is writing very much about this is Justin Martyr, but a lot of what he wrote has been lost so we pick up most of what we know about his theory from the next guy in line, Irenaeus. He was born in Turkey but is later sent to France as a Bishop. His tomb existed in France until about the 1500’s when it was destroyed by the Huguenots (French Protestants.) Anyway, Irenaeus popularizes Justin Martyr’s eary attempt at understanding the Atonement in what is now called the recapitulation view of the atonement. In this view, Christ is seen as the new Adam who succeeds where Adam failed. Christ undoes the wrong that Adam did and, because of his union with humanity, leads humankind on to eternal life (including moral perfection).

Latter-day Saint friends you will notice two things here….1) This view hinges on the idea that what Adam did in the Garden threw humanity off course. William Barclay says about this theory, “Through man’s disobedience the process of the evolution of the human race went wrong, and the course of its wrongness could neither be halted nor reversed by any human means. But in Jesus Christ the whole course of human evolution was perfectly carried out and realised in obedience to the purpose of God.” So you can see here, there is no sense of a “fortunate fall.” There is a sense that God understood a Savior would need to be provided, but that’s as far as they can go. The other thing you will notice here is 2) the phrase, “moral perfection.” During this time there was still a belief that becoming like God actually meant becoming like God. For Irenaeus, the ultimate goal of Christ’s work of solidarity with humankind is to make humankind divine. He says that Jesus, ‘became what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself’. [Irenaeus, Against Heresies Preface to Book 5] This idea is taken up by many other Church Fathers, such as Ss. Athanasius, Gregory, Augustine, and Maximus the Confessor. This Eastern Orthodox theological development out of the recapitulation view of the atonement is called theosis (“deification”), and they still hold that as a belief. But all other Christian groups (Protestants and Catholics and others) have lost that plain and precious truth. It’s us and the Eastern Orthodox here. So, that’s what the recapitulation theory is – “As man is God once was, as God is man may be.” But that theory mostly gets lost and the next one to take it’s place is called the Ransom theory.

Ransom theory replaces the recapitulation theory around the year 400. Robin Collins explains it this way, “Essentially, this theory claimed that Adam and Eve sold humanity over to the Devil at the time of the Fall; hence, it required that God pay the Devil a ransom to free us from the Devil’s clutches. God, however, tricked the Devil into accepting Christ’s death as a ransom, for the Devil did not realize that Christ could not be held in the bonds of death. Once the Devil accepted Christ’s death as a ransom, this theory concluded, justice was satisfied and God was able to free us from Satan’s grip.”

Latter-day Saint friends, you will recognize less and less of what you know to be true in these theories as we go along. But this theory does make a very charming children’s story. If you remember in the Narnia books…why does Aslan have to die? Because the Queen reminds him of the “deep magic” and that magic is, in fact, the atonement theory being worked out in Narnia – which is that Aslan’s death must be a ransom to satisfy that deep magic. This theory is the prevailing theory all the way up until the early middle ages – which is not surprising that CS Lewis chose to use it in his books, he was a scholar of the middle ages. Lewis later says that he prefers this theory because it allows us to think of ourselves as participating in Christ’s death and not something that happens without us being involved. But around 1100 another theory starts to gain popularity, the Satisfaction Theory.

This theory uses the metaphor of the relationship between a Feudal Lord and his people. The people live on land belonging to the Lord and are expected to produce some of their crops in exchange for living there. If the people do something wrong that harms the land, they must pay for the damages. In this theory Christ is punished instead of us. So in Ransom theory, Christ is suffering to overcome death itself. But in Satisfaction Theory he is suffering that honor or possession has been taken away, and must be paid back. The debt must be satisfied. The peasants must pay back the Feudal Lord for the damage they did to his property. But they are peasants and can’t afford to pay for the damage they caused, so Christ pays the debt for them and the Feudal Lord is satisfied.

There is also a rival theory during this time called the Moral Influence Theory of Atonement which says that God was trying to influence humanity by showing a great act of love in sending Jesus. That theory doesnt last long. It morphs into what is called the Moral Exemplar Theory which means that Jesus provided a good example for us in obeying his Father even to death and that we should do likewise.

Neither of those last very long and 500 years later they have morphed into what is now called Penal Substitutionary Atonement.

Penal Substitutionary Atonement removes the Feudal Lord metaphor and replaces it with a courtroom metaphor. “Penal” like “penal code” means that a law has been broken. They’re no longer thinking of “property damage” as much as they are “rule-keeping.” A law has been broken and the criminal must be punished. The judge in this scenario is Heavenly Father and he is angry at his rules being broken, so someone must be punished. Christ steps in and takes the punishment for us because we could not bear it on our own. Still today this is the Atonement theory most Christians hold. But there are others.

By the 18th Century there is a popular theory called the Government Theory of Atonement which basically says that God wants needs to maintain Divine Justice and he does through through a government system. We’re in the 1700’s and obviously there is a lot of thinking about what government is during this time and so this theory picks up that metaphor to say, “The atonement is really about God running a good government.”

We also get the Christus Victor theory which is a modernization of the Ransom Theory. In this theory, Jesus is battling powers and comes out the winner. There are also a whole variety of newer theories…There is a Feminist Atonement Theory, an Accident theory, many more.

One of the reasons I wanted to go through all of these and spell them out to you is so that you can see how the further away from the time of Christ we get, the more that has been lost, the more the theories change and sometimes even get weird. Saying that plain and precious truths were lost is no joke. Some of these theories see themselves as offering salvation to anyone – some see it as limited atonement that is only for some.

One thing you might notice in most of these theories is that God is mad or offended and has to be appeased. And I will compare that to what we believe. In our view, we existed with God before we were born. He sends us to Earth to learn and grow but knows that will come with making some terrible mistakes, including some deliberate decisions to disobey him. Those things would pile up and we would never be able to return to God. So he sets out a plan from the beginning that Jesus Christ will offer forgiveness and a lifetime of opportunity to repent and get back on track so that we can return to the presence of God. Our ability to repent and come back to God is only possible because of Jesus’ role as Savior. We live a life practicing repentance so that we may return to him. “As man is God once was, as God is man may be.”

Thank you for joining me for all of this. I hope it gives you insight not only into what other people are thinking about the atonement, but so that you can better understand our own beliefs about the atonement. Join me next time – we have one more week in the Gospels and then we move to Acts and that will be fun. See you then.

More Come, Follow Me resources here.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – Matthew 27; Mark 15; Luke 23; John 19 appeared first on FAIR.