theMormonMind

rent a car bulgaria[The following is a letter I wrote to a Latter-day Saint acquaintance on Friday, June 13, 2008.  He had invited me to read an address by Apostle Jeffrey R. Holland, entitled “Cast Not Away Therefore Your Confidence.”  You can read Holland’s address here.  The following is my response. To date, my acquaintance has not replied.]

Dear ____,

I truly appreciate your invitation to review Jeffrey R. Holland’s devotional address entitled “Cast Not Away Therefore Your Confidence.”  I’ve always thought of Holland as a gentle, caring individual, and I do not harbor any preconceived personal bias against him.  By the same token, I haven’t really heard or read many of his talks – only a few.  So, though you may find it difficult to accept – especially given the content of my response – I have honestly tried to approach his address with as open a mind as I could muster.

At the outset, I should say that I believe I understand his basic thrust, and I do not altogether disagree with it.  I believe that, on a very high level, Holland is trying to encourage people to keep their commitments and stick to their goals – and in most daily situations there is certainly nothing wrong with that sort of advice.  It’s easy to become discouraged in our day-to-day lives.  In the words of M. Scott Peck, “Life is hard.”  We all strive in our personal battles against discouragement, and we all need encouragement from time to time, along with assurance that things will get better if we make good choices.

That being said, I feel strongly inclined to mention several items in his address which trouble me to one degree or another.  As I was reading through it, these issues jumped out at me, and I wrote them down.  I hope I do not bore you with what follows, and I also hope that I do not come across as deliberately trying to find fault.  But then again, I’m an ex-mo … I’ve got issues … what would you expect?

Of course, an important factor in receiving counsel from anyone is that of credibility.  Is the person offering counsel qualified to do so?  What are his credentials?  Since Holland is an apostle, I daresay he needs no further proof of credibility in the eyes of Church members.  But, as I was reading his article, I couldn’t help but be struck by a few items which, to a skeptic like me, raise doubt.

First is his support for Paul as the author of the book of Hebrews.  Most biblical scholars are in agreement that Paul was not its author.  Yet, Holland mentions it casually, in passing, as though it were an established fact.  Even the conservative NIV (New International Version) hesitates to ascribe Pauline authorship, even suggesting Apollos and Barnabas as possible candidates.  Yet, the LDS edition of the scriptures nonchalantly gives the title “The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews,” presenting the matter as though authorship has been firmly established.  If I remember correctly, Joseph Smith quotes from Hebrews in one of his public addresses and speaks of Paul being the author – and for most LDS, that probably settles the matter.

At any rate, I see this as a gross oversimplification of the facts, and yet another opportunity to just blindly accept the words of “inspired men” as the final word on the subject, and make no personal investigations of our own.  Failing to recognize the question of authorship here strikes me as childlike in its trust and simplicity.  Most Bible scholars do not believe that Paul wrote the book of Hebrews – period; and I daresay they have convincing arguments to support their view.

Second is Holland’s reference to the “Red Sea.”  The Hebrew name here is actually yam suph, which translates “Sea of Reeds.”  The term “Red Sea” first made its appearance when the Old Testament was translated into Greek sometime between the 3rd and 1st centuries BCE (the Septuagint), and is an inaccurate translation.  Yet, here we have someone who claims to be an apostle – a prophet seer and revelator, no less – and he is still calling it the “Red Sea” – as does the Book of Mormon.  If memory serves, references to this misnomer are made in Nephi, Mosiah, and Alma.   Isn’t it interesting that Nephi (an Israelite who lived circa 600 BCE) would use a term that would not mistakenly come into use until at least 300 years later?  Did the plates actually read “Red Sea” and not “Reed Sea?”  If so, why?  If not, why were they translated incorrectly?

Third is Holland’s use of the name “Lucifer” for Satan.  Like “Red Sea,” this, too, is a misnomer.  The word “Lucifer” occurs only once in the entire Bible (Isa. 14:12), and refers explicitly to the king of Babylon – not Satan.  The term was first used by Jerome when he translated the Greek Septuagint into Latin in the 4th century CE.  I don’t know how long it was afterwards that people began to mistakenly identify the term with Satan.  Yet, once again, Nephi the ancient Israelite shows his amazing ability to look into the future, and names Satan “Lucifer” in 2 Nephi 24:12 – over 1,000 years before the term came into use at all, and who knows how many years before it was used to refer to Satan.  How would Nephi’s contemporaries even know who he was talking about?  Holland here perpetuates the mistake (as does, of course, the temple endowment – but that would be a digression).

Finally, Holland asks the rhetorical question: “Why didn’t He [the Lord] use the First Vision?” in D&C 8 as an example of adversity before revelation.  Well, to a skeptic like me, the answer is glaringly obvious.  This “revelation” was received in 1829.  As you are no doubt aware, there are several First Vision accounts, each containing contradictions and/or differences with the others, the oldest dating from 1832 – three years after D&C 8, and twelve years after the event was supposed to have occurred.  This 1832 account makes no mention of any malignant force attempting to intervene in Joseph’s attempt.  In fact, this malevolent element of his story did not make its appearance until the 1838-39 “official” account, first published in 1840 – twenty years after the event was alleged to have occurred.  So, I would suggest that this is “why” the First Vision was not used as an example in 1829.  The account, as such, did not yet even exist in Joseph’s mind at the time.

As I said earlier, these points jumped out at me as I was reading Holland’s article, and as each one made its appearance, his credibility (at least to my mind) suffered.

I don’t mean to sound so monotonous in my negativity, but the essence of his message didn’t really resonate with me.  Here’s what I got from it:

• Satan is always out there, ready to shipwreck your life any way that he can
• Therefore, life is going to be tough, many decisions will be hard, and doubts will come
• Don’t let Satan get the best of you, don’t give up, and above all, don’t doubt your testimony of the restored Gospel
• If you hang in there, you will be blessed

I apologize to both Holland and you if this summary falls short of being completely fair or accurate.  I’m just trying to outline what I understand as his main points. 

After leaving the Church, I became much more sensitive to what I perceive as “mind control” techniques which Church leaders use to keep the membership in line.  When I was “on the inside,” I was totally oblivious to their existence; but now that I’ve had the experience of stepping back (and, in my opinion, gaining perspective), these tactics stand out like sore thumbs.

One of the most powerful of these tools is fear – particularly fear of the outside world.  Since the Church is good, then all evil – if it exists at all – must exist outside of the Church.  To the Latter-day Saint, that’s where Satan is, and he’s waiting to drag you out of the Church into his realm, and utterly destroy everything that’s truly important in your life.  Now, if that’s not a good reason to be afraid, I don’t know what is.

Don’t go out there.  Stay in the Church where it’s safe.  Your testimony isn’t strong enough to protect you.  You’re not smart enough to figure out all of his lies on your own.  Just stay in here with us where it’s safe, and we’ll protect you.  Don’t read anything or talk to anyone who may lead you to question your faith.  Just trust us.  We know what’s best for you.

And so on.

You’re a Latter-day Saint now, and I was one for decades, so we both recognize this mindset, even if we may not share it.  When I left the Church, no one – no one – asked me why.  These were folks whom I had considered my good friends for over half my life, and yet not a one of them dared ask me why I was leaving.  And why was that?  I suggest it was because of fear; or, perhaps, more accurately, a programmed fear response.  In my opinion, they were afraid that either their testimony was not strong enough, or their personal knowledge of the Church was too weak to withstand a simple conversation with me without coming away damaged or stained to some degree.  And they believed this because, for years on end, meeting after meeting, broadcast after broadcast, they were told to believe it.

They’ve spent so many years being told what to think, who to follow, what to read, what to wear (even down to their underwear), what not to eat, how to pray, which hand to take the sacrament with, how many earrings should go in each ear – basically bowing their heads and saying yes – that they’ve lost some measure of confidence in their ability to think for themselves.  And, if you want to control a group of people and keep them in line, what better way to do so than to slowly erode their self confidence?

At least, that’s what I prefer to think.  The only other real alternative explanation is that they just didn’t care enough about my immortal soul to even try and “rescue” me.

Which is worse, I wonder?

In addition to his use of fear tactics, I was troubled (but certainly not surprised) by Holland’s all-too-familiar assertion that feeling is knowing.  If you pray about the Book of Mormon, and you get a good feeling as a result, then you can know without a doubt that the book is all that it claims to be – even if you really have very little idea of what that might actually be.  All you need is the feeling, and once you have that, you can know.  How many times have we both heard the phrase: “I know the Church is true.”

Well, as I’m sure you’ve guessed, I’m now adamantly opposed to this way of thinking – or, as I prefer to call it – non-thinking.  Though I used to accept this principle as a viable method for the determination of truth, I now completely reject it.  In quasi-scientific terms, this technique simply produces too many false positives.  Just consider the billions of people all around the world who belong to other religions.  Have they prayed about their beliefs?  Do they firmly believe they get answers to their prayers?  Are they every bit as convinced that their religion is true as are Latter-day Saints?  The answers are obvious, and the conclusion is clear.  Latter-day Saints do not have a corner on the I-have-prayed-about-it-and-feel-completely-convinced-that-my-church-is-true market.  This observation alone is enough to discredit the “feeling is knowing” method as being a reliable indicator of truth.

We just can’t depend on it.  Feeling is not knowing.  Feeling is feeling.  Tearing something to pieces, looking into every corner, putting it back together again, testing it, trying it, being able to reliably reproduce it, allowing peers to review and verify it – now that is knowing, at least as well as we can know anything here in mortality.  How many scientists publish their research in peer-reviewed journals, and then conclude their presentation with an admonition that everyone should pray about their results, and that God will reveal to them that it is true?  Can you imagine?

Of course, I’m (rather clumsily) attempting to describe the scientific method.  I must confess that I’ve grown to have quite a respect for it.  Just look around.  It appears to work quite well.  I can almost guarantee that most of what you see (wherever you may be sitting right now, reading my reply), was brought to you via this paradigm.  I have a great respect for those men and women who, over the course of centuries, have strived (many times against the efforts of religion) to discover all the truth they could, and I am forever grateful for their efforts.  In the area of medical knowledge alone, they have probably saved the lives of several members of my family many times over. 

I’m not sure I can say that of any priesthood holders I know.

At any rate, the “feeling is knowing” issue could be explored in great detail, and is probably beyond the scope of my reply.  Perhaps we can postpone a fuller discussion of the subject to a later time.

Finally (yes, I’m actually about done here) I want to say something about Holland’s assertion that “If it was right when you prayed about it and trusted in it, it is right now.” Should we really consider this to be sound advice?  Should we not feel free to exercise our prerogative to change our minds?  I am reminded of the old saying: “A wise man sometimes changes his mind. A fool never does.”

Certainly if we have learned anything from this life, we have learned that change is inevitable.  Something in our nature tends to resist it, to be sure; but it is, nevertheless, an integral part of our existence.  The world is constantly changing around us; some of it is for the better, and some for the worse.  The good things we try to adapt to; the bad things we resist.  And so it goes, day after day, year after year, and century after century.

This constant process of change requires us to maintain a certain degree of flexibility.  Something that is “good” today may be replaced by something “better” tomorrow.  Latter-day Saints, especially, should be familiar with this principle.  In the early nineteenth century, Christians had their Bibles and their churches, and enjoyed – from the LDS perspective – a limited portion of the Gospel.  But suddenly the morning breaks, the shadows flee, and the true Gospel of Jesus Christ is miraculously restored to the earth again.  Christians were then presented with the wonderful opportunity to discard what was once “good” for what was now unquestionably “better”. 

The important point here is that, for these early Mormons to accept the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, and the restoration, they had to be willing to reevaluate their former convictions.  This is true of any and all potential converts.  Each must be willing to examine his world view, evaluate it in view of new light and knowledge, and then decide whether or not is it worth keeping.  The Church’s entire missionary effort depends upon this crucial principle. 

Yet here we have Holland preaching just the opposite.  “Don’t forget how you once felt. Don’t distrust the experience you had.”  So, are we supposed to just switch off our brains once we become LDS?  Shouldn’t this same principle of reevaluation still hold true (using his own logic: if it was a true principle then, should it not still be true now)?  If this was the very first principle that missionaries taught to investigators, would anyone join the Church?  When Holland makes this assertion, he sounds to me more like someone who is just interested in getting members to join his club, and then keep them in the club, regardless. 

Certainly there are aspects of our lives which we do not regularly rethink, such as our choice of spouse, our sexual preference, or our love for chocolate.  Still other components of our lives are contractual in nature, and we find ourselves severely limited in our ability to simply change our minds and choose a different course.  One might even argue that joining the Church is equivalent to entering into a contractual relationship with Deity.  At baptism – the gateway to Church membership – members enter into the “baptismal covenant,” a contractual relationship with God.  Should a person even consider breaking this type of contract?  Can they?  Should it be easier to break a contract with Almighty God than to, say, break my mortgage contract with my bank?

Of course, having left the Church, I would argue that God was never a party to the contract in the first place, that the contract was entered into under false pretense (the Church having misrepresented itself to the convert), and that, as a result, the contract should be considered null and void.  Again using myself as an example, I became unsatisfied with this contractual relationship; I reexamined my initial feelings and experiences; I researched the Church and its claims; I concluded that the other party (the Church) has misrepresented itself; accordingly, I took steps to dissolve the relationship and nullify the contract.

I reevaluated my former decision in the face of new light and knowledge – exactly what missionaries encourage their potential converts to do.  Yet Holland would counsel us to forego this process, once we’re safely on his “team.” 

I would modify Holland’s advice as follows.  Go ahead: examine the new information.  Determine its worth.  Reevaluate your earlier decision based on this new data.  If what you believed was true before, it will still be true now.  If it wasn’t, then you have the uniquely wonderful opportunity to replace a deficient world view with one that is just that much closer to the truth.  Either way, you win.

Thanks, again, for inviting me to read this article, and please accept a special thanks for plowing your way through my rather lengthy response.  If you want (and if you have time!), please feel free to respond. 

As we agreed earlier, I will send you some questions regarding the Church, and hopefully we can engage in a mutually beneficial discussion.

Sincerely,

____