This broadcaster has 500 podcast archives available on-demand.
Keep up-to-date with this broadcaster on social media and their website.
July 17, 2020 5:14 pm
101 is research ministries Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson has helped many more to understand what separates Mormonism from the Christian faith. Mormonism 101 is available at your favorite Christian bookstore firstname.lastname@example.org .1 examines the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints from a biblical perspective view .1 Mormonism sponsored by Mormonism research ministry since 1979 Mormonism research ministry has been dedicated to equipping the body of Christ with answers regarding the Christian faith in a manner that expresses gentleness and respect. And now, your host for today's viewpoint on Mormonism. How is an LDS person to handle doubts their spouse may have welcomed this additional viewpoint on Mormonism.
I'm your host, Bill McKeever, founder and director Mormonism research ministry and with me today is Eric Johnson.
My colleague at M. R. M.
In the June 2020 addition of enzyme magazine. There was an article titled answers to seven questions from young married adults.
It was an article by Alan H. Oaks, and it was taken from a talk that he gave back in 2018 that was titled keeping the faith on the front line.
One of the questions that he raises had to do with the doubt that a Latter Day Saints person.
Spouse may have. How does he word the question Eric and how does he respond to that and the reason I asked the question how is it word, it is because we have no reason to believe that these are probably not questions based on real inquiries that Latter Day Saints have given to the leadership of the church. All of these questions seem like they would be valid questions that some members may have. Whether or not this is a specific question written by one individual. We don't know but it doesn't really matter because it is I think a valid inquiry on the part of a member of the church. The question is, my spouse is gone inactive due to doubts regarding church history and doctrinal issues. How should I go about researching and responding to these issues that his answer to this is quite interesting especially when we look at that first sentence but I want you to go through his entire response to that question that you just raise and it's only one paragraph and it says I suggest that research is not the answer. References to the churches.
Many helps to answer familiar questions such as the gospel topics email@example.com may help one who is sincerely seeking but the best answer to any question that threatens faith is to work to increase faith in the Lord Jesus Christ conversion to the Lord precedes conversion to the church and conversion to the Lord, through prayer and study and service furthered by loving patience on the part of the spouse and other concerned family members. Now let's dissect what he says here because as I said earlier, his first sentence is very telling. He says I suggest that research is not the answer. Now that's probably not an answer that I would give even to a Christian who claims that they are having some doubts about their Christian faith. I would most certainly suggest that research is probably the answer in any given situation. I've had this happen many times with especially young people who have come to me saying you know, pray for me.
I'm having some doubts about my faith in one of the things that I will always try to do is get some information in their hands that might fill in something that perhaps they've missed from the Bible because there are a lot of excellent Christian writers out there that deal with this topic specifically and are very good at answering some of the doubts that many Christians might have, wouldn't you think it would be the same remedy for a member of the LDS church, and I would think so and you and when you say that when a Christian comes to you and has a doubt, and expresses that doubt. I think the worst thing we can do is say while I suggest that you don't research for your answer on that. That would be the last answer I would do, that's for sure. Yeah, I mean the Bible very clearly says were supposed to second Timothy 215 says study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman who needed not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. I don't think the Bible intends for us to sit believe and have faith without having some substance behind that belief in acts chapter 17 Paul goes and visits the Marines and it says that the brands were more noble than the Thessalonians because they took out their Scriptures and they studied and wanted to determine if what Paul was saying was truth as a Christian, what we want to do is be able to provide reasons and evidence for why we ought to believe in the existence of God.
The reliability of Scripture, and so on and so forth.
So what you just described is what we have always argued for and that is a reasonable faith. We don't ignore the hard questions we want to tackle the hard questions now is that assuming that we're going to answer every single question that life throws at us know.
Probably not, but in Mormonism there often told to handle it by will just pray about it, just pray about it now. Some leaders have been honest enough to admit that that's not working anymore.
You can't just do that any longer because there's too much information out there that needs to be addressed and were not afraid of addressing the information, but when Oaks says I suggest that research is not the answer. How many Latter Day Saints are going to see that and think to themselves, while I really do belong to an anti-intellectual faith.
And that's going to bother them because they want some answers know in the next sentence he kinda backpedaled a little bit and we do want to address that. But let's talk about how Dallen Oakes seems to be cut from the same cloth as colleagues, such as Boyd K. Packer, no Packer has passed away, but certainly he was a living colleague of Dallen Oakes, Delano, she's been around a long time but waited Boyd K. Packer say in his book. Let not your heart be troubled on page 106 when he talks about historians telling too much history. He writes there is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of church history to want to tell everything, whether or not it is worthy or faith promoting some things that are true are not very useful. Historians seem to take great pride in publishing something new, particularly if it illustrates a weakness or mistake of a prominent historical figure for some reason historians and novelists seem to savor such things if it related to a living person it would come under the heading of gossip history can be as misleading as gossip and much more difficult. Often impossible to verify the writer or the teacher who has an exaggerated loyalty to the theory that everything must be told is laying a foundation for his own judgment he should not complain if one day he himself receives as he has given. Perhaps that is what is contemplated in having one's sins preached from the housetops that paragraph just has so many problems for me because even though he wants to accuse people of promoting what he calls gossip, even though it's well documented and should be taken into account. If were going to draw a conclusion on a given topic, but notice what he does here when he says historians seem to take great pride in publishing something new, particularly if it illustrates a weakness or mistake of a prominent historical figure folks, what Boyd K Packer just did in that sentence. Is he invoked what we call the logical fallacy of ad hominem. In other words you are to assume. According to this kind of guidance that Packer is giving that any historian who talks about something uncomfortable regarding their own history. In this case, the history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is doing it because they're exercising this evil pride in order to illustrate, as he says a weakness or mistake of a prominent historical figure. Folks, that's not the way it always is. Many times historians are really trying to just report on history. It's not really their fault if they history their reporting makes Mormonism look bad. That's just the way it is and we have history therefore us in order to make a sound decision as to what we do with this history. Packer goes on to say something else on page 110 of the same book that we need to take into account in the church. We are not neutral. We are one-sided. There is a war going on and we are engaged in it. It is a war between good and evil and we are belligerents defending the good we are therefore obliged to give preference to and protect all that is represented in the gospel of Jesus Christ and we have made covenants to do it. Wow. Think of the importance of that statement. Here he is actually excusing the reality that the church is going to protect itself by guarding the rest of its adherence from information that could cause them to see there something wrong with that same church when he says we are one-sided is that really how historians are supposed to be. I mean a good historian a good historian is going to take the information as it is, and report on the information. Hopefully, giving the reader a proper context for what he's reporting on so that the reader will more uniformly understand why something was said or why something was done they need to be truthful in those areas. So when Packer actually defends this notion that the church when it comes to this information is not neutral. He admits it is one-sided and he invokes privilege on this because, as he sees it.
There is a war going on and we are engaged in it and it is the war between good and evil and we are belligerents defending the good will of course he's going to think he's on the side of good. Most people don't telegraph that they are trying to defend something that's evil and bad but he has to believe that what he is engaged in and that is the promotion of teachings and history in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is going to be something that is virtuous, even though he admits it may be one-sided in the previous quote that we had read from Packer when he said there is a temptation for the writer or teacher of church history to want to tell everything, whether or not it is worthy or faith promoting what Packer seems to want is only producing the things that are worthy in the sense that they are faith promoting and if it's not faith promoting if it's going to lead people astray, then it seems like he would say we should not get into that and I'll give you one example until probably around 2013 or so I have had conversations with Latter Day Saints, who insisted that Jesse Smith did not have multiple wives 30 to 40 wives that came out in the gospel topics essay where the essay admitted that he had 30 to 40 wives.
But I'm telling you I had at least a dozen or more conversations over the years where Latter Day Saints would say no that's not true.
He was married to Emma and that's a complete anti-Mormon line well why didn't the church come out with that earlier. While I think because they didn't have to until the Internet told too much. I remember when you and I were visiting Temple Square and got into a conversation with two sister missionaries over that very issue. Remember that one sister missionary who insisted that Joseph Smith only had one wife, and that was, I kindly explained to her all she needed to do was go across the plaza to their own computers in the Joseph Smith Memorial building and she could look up a number of these plural wives on church computers. She didn't seem to be very interested in doing that, but at least she did hear another side of the story. Tomorrow were going to continue looking at this question that Dallen Oakes raises in this article titled answers to seven questions from young married adults. Thank you for listening. If you would like more information we guarding him in his research ministry. We encourage you to visit our website www.mrm.org you can request a free newsletter Mormonism research.
We hope you will join us again as we look at another viewpoint is