Tyler J Perry
If you as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-Day Saints ever came across material such as Fawn Brodie's No Man
Knows My History, the works of Jerald and Sandra Tanner, or the 1912 New
York Times article about the Book of Abraham, you may have been told to
dismiss them out of hand as “anti-Mormon lies". Indeed, this content that
is damaging to the church and its reputation can appear to the believer as the
work of the demonic Adversary whose sole goal it is to uproot the kingdom of
God on Earth. It is, thus, convenient and, perhaps, even prudent to label this
material as both “anti-Mormon” and “lies".
However, a difficulty appears when one learns that Fawn
Brodie’s work is shown to be truth faithful scholar Richard Bushman's biography
of the Prophet Joseph Smith [1]. Worse still, the scholarly work of Jerald and
Sandra Tanner has been moved from its place among the “anti-Mormon lies"
and into the place of “uncomfortable truths" with which the modern church
must contend [2]. And imagine listening to the late esteemed Dr. Robert
Ritner's 13-hour interview with John Dehlin and the podcaster known as Radio
Free Mormon (RFM), where the Egyptologist eviscerated the apologetics
supporting the Book of Abraham and demonstrably showed that the book is not a
translation of the Egyptian papyrus [3][4][5].
As we can see, so-called anti-Mormon lies have been moved
into the domain of truth at such a hurried pace that the church and its leaders
are struggling to keep up. This is why, I would contend, the CES Letter
has been so devastating to the faiths of many once-believing members [6].
Yet, I do believe that, despite all these anti-Mormon lies
being moved into the realm of truth, anti-Mormon lies persist to this day. This
article will examine some of the modern anti-Mormon lies, and how we can
respond to them in truth.
First, we need to define our terms. What is an “anti-Mormon
lie"? At first blush, it may seem that it is any untrue statement that
opposes Mormonism. This term has historically been weaponized to vilify critics
as “anti-Mormons", a term that is regarded as almost a slur in the ex- and
post-Mormon community.
I find this definition overly reductive and boring. It is no
fun to write (or read) a blog dealing with a boring subject. A better, and more
interesting, definition would explore first what “Mormon” means. Despite Gordon
Hinckley trying to define it as “more good" [7], I think Joseph Smith
provided a much better definition.
“Mormonism is truth; and every man who embraces it feels
himself at liberty to embrace every truth: consequently the shackles of
superstition, bigotry, ignorance, and priestcraft, fall at once from his neck;
and his eyes are opened to see the truth, and truth greatly prevails over
priestcraft. …
“… Mormonism is truth, in other words the doctrine of the
Latter-day Saints, is truth. … The first and fundamental principle of our holy
religion is, that we believe that we have a right to embrace all, and every
item of truth, without limitation or without being circumscribed or prohibited
by the creeds or superstitious notions of men, or by the dominations of one
another, when that truth is clearly demonstrated to our minds, and we have the
highest degree of evidence of the same.” [8]
According to the Prophet Joseph, Mormonism is truth. They
are one and the same. It could be said that one who possesses more truth
possesses more Mormonism [9]. Under this definition, “anti-Mormon lies"
becomes “anti-truth lies”, which feels a bit redundant, but allows for a much
more robust discussion of what a real “anti-Mormon lie" would look like. I
would assert, then, that the anti-Mormon is defined as one who opposes truth [10].
When Joseph Fielding Smith, then the church historian, found
the 1832 version of the First Vision account in Joseph Smith’s journal, he
appears to have cut it out of the journal and hid it away in his safe. It was
not until critics of the church pointed out that the account had been excised
from the journal that it was replaced, with tape. The truth is that Joseph
Smith wrote a version of the First Vision that appears quite a bit different
from the 1838 account that appears in Joseph Smith – History. Joseph Fielding
Smith, an eventual apostle and president of the church, feared that truth,
opposed it, and hid it. [11] This action was anti-truth. Thus, by the
definitions we established through the teachings of Joseph Smith, it was
anti-Mormon. And it was an done with the intent to deceive. It was a lie.
One may note that Joseph Fielding Smith died a fair number
of years ago. And this example was the action of one man. Why bother discussing
this?
Because the anti-Mormon lies persist to this day. On August
23, 2021, Jeffrey Holland stood in front of BYU staff and faculty and stated
that Matt Easton had “commandeer[ed]” the valedictorian speech for the purpose
of announcing his sexual orientation to the world [12]. The truth is that Matt
Easton had vetted his talk through the appropriate school channels and had
permission to say the exact words that he uttered [13]. Holland, a man who
claimed in that same speech to be well-informed on the happenings at the
university [14], appears to have either misrepresented just how informed he is
or to willfully mischaracterize Matt Easton’s speech to serve a narrative
without theological substance. This is anti-truth. It deceives.
You can infer what that means.
Anti-Mormon lies persist in the world today. But they are
not created and perpetuated by the church’s critics. Anyone who believes that
the critics have need to create lies should, perhaps, study the relevant
literature more closely. No, the anti-Mormon lies are not found in the scholarly
works of Dan Vogel, Gregory Prince, or Robert Ritner. They are found on the
pages of FAIR, in the books by John Gee published by Deseret Book [15], and in
the talks given by men who claim divine right to speak for God at universities
funded by “sacred tithing dollars".
If Mormonism is about truth, then the men sitting in the red
thrones this weekend are not about Mormonism.
Maybe that’s why the term has been labeled a victory for Satan
[16].
[1] https://www.timesandseasons.org/harchive/2005/12/what-hath-bushman-wrought/
[2] https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/archive/publications/jerald-and-sandra-tanners-distorted-view-of-mormonism-a-response-to-mormonism-shadow-or-reality
(Note the ad hominem employed by the author, and the lack of engagement with
the actual arguments presented in the Tanners work)
[3] https://youtu.be/ORNYUyHg3pY
[4] https://youtu.be/df4flxToFvM
[5] https://youtu.be/H70IdpLHhZE
[8] https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-22?lang=eng
[9] Adapted from Doctrine and Covenants 130:18-19
[10] https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1982/04/this-is-no-harm?lang=eng
(As Ashton notes, lies are done whenever one attempts to deceive. This can be
my misrepresenting truth by showing only a limited number of facts. It can be
by hiding things that are uncomfortable. It can be by deliberately saying
things that are untrue. In any case, as taught by as Ashton, these things are
lies. The definitions we are working with fails to distinguish between anti-
and pro-Mormon lies, since lies are, in Mormonism, always opposed to truth.)
[12] https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/jeffrey-r-holland/the-second-half-second-century-brigham-young-university/
(see paragraph 27)
[13] https://youtu.be/YfsyFraqZyY
[14] https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/jeffrey-r-holland/the-second-half-second-century-brigham-young-university/
(see beginning around paragraph 20 as Holland describes the relationship between
the church and the university)
[15] https://religionnews.com/2020/09/08/controversial-mormon-book-pulled-publication-byu-john-gee/
(John Gee was one of Dr. Robert Ritner’s students. Dr. Ritner had very few nice
things to say about John Gee. I get it.)
Comments
Post a Comment