The Apologists vs The Apostles

When a Mormon encounters a claim critical of her faith, or hears of puzzling historical events that don't quite jibe with what she has been taught in Sunday School, or comes across a description of temple rituals wholly foreign to the ones in which she has participated, she might take her concerns and questions to the apologetic websites of the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, or FAIR.

If you're sitting there reading Mormon-related blogs, I'm willing to bet you have at least some familiarity with FAIR, so I'll forgo any detailed description of their background or mission. If you're not familiar with FAIR, suffice it to say they are a group of Mormon apologists dedicated to defending "from a historical or scholarly point of view" the LDS Church against criticisms of its doctrines, practices, and scriptures.

Since the Church itself rarely, if ever, weighs in authoritatively and officially on controversies, FAIR (and similar apologetic organizations) is the closest an inquiring Mormon can come to finding an LDS response to her questions or concerns, although she must be willing to accept the implications of the disclaimer appearing at the bottom of their homepage: FAIR's research "should not be interpreted as official statements of LDS doctrine, belief or practice."

But seeing as how their research effectively calls into question the reliability, competency, or possibly even the honesty of certain Church leaders, I submit that the wording of FAIR's disclaimer might be putting it mildly.

What am I talking about? Well, take, for example,what the following Church leaders are on record claiming with respect to the revelations given to Joseph Smith, published originally as A Book of Commandments (back when the LDS Church was still known as the Church of Christ), but now collected in the Doctrine and Covenants:

"None of the early revelations of the Church have been revised." - Hugh B. Brown, Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, in a letter to Morris Reynolds, May 13, 1966, as quoted by Richard Abanes in One Nation Under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church (Thunder's Mouth Press: New York, 2003), p. 408 

"There has been no tampering with God's Word.... [T]he whole body of Church laws forms a harmonizing unit, which does not anywhere contradict itself nor has it been found necessary to alter any part of it." - John A. Widtsoe, Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Joseph Smith - Seeker After Truth (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1951), p. 119, 122

"Inspiration is discovered in the fact that each part, as it was revealed, dovetailed perfectly with what had come before. There was no need for eliminating, changing, or adjusting any part to make it fit." - Joseph Fielding Smith, Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Church Historian and Recorder, future President of LDS Church, Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 1 (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954), p. 170

These Brethren have made it clear: there have been no changes made to the revelations the Lord gave Joseph Smith. But when we look at the FAIR webpage with the somewhat alarming title, Doctrine and Covenants / Textual Changes, what do we find? Well, FAIR's research informs us that,

• "Of course there have been changes and corrections. Anyone who has done even limited research knows that."
• "Some... changes added material which had been gleaned from advancements in Church organization or later revelations, or expanded upon ideas within the original text."
• "A few revelations removed text, or altered the expression of an idea with a new phrasing or approach."
• "The editing and modification of the revelations was never a secret; it was well known to the Church of Joseph's day, and it has been discussed repeatedly in modern Church publications, as well as extensive studies in Masters' and PhD theses at BYU."
• "Sometimes changes were required to clarify wording. Occasionally, later revelations would supersede or update previously received revelations, necessitating the editing of documents to alter previous versions. Various other changes were also made from time to time."
• "In a few cases, more substantive changes were made as revelations were updated for the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants."

In addition, Hugh Nibley, arguably the godfather of modern LDS apologetics, declared when writing to Morris Reynolds in 1966, "Revelations have been revised whenever necessary." (Although, as has been discussed earlier, caution should be employed in taking Nibley at his word.)

So what are we to make of this? Apostles Brown, Widtsoe, and Smith (who happened to be in the unique and advantageous position of being Church Historian at the time) say no changes have been made to the revelations given to Joseph Smith, while the so-called "research" of FAIR insists otherwise. Both cannot be right. And although FAIR appears, superficially at least, to have some evidence supporting their position, I believe reflecting on some past words of counsel might behoove those seriously weighing this matter in their minds:

"[Satan] wins a great victory when he can get members of the church to speak against their leaders and to do their own thinking. When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done."  - "Ward Teacher's Message," Deseret News (Church Section), May 26, 1945, p. 5. Also appeared in the Improvement Era (name of official Church magazine prior to the Ensign), June 1945, p.354 (Wow! Did they really have that many pages in their magazine back then?! Don't ask me, I got the reference from One Nation Under Gods, p. 607 note 34.)

"No Latter-day Saint who is true and faithful in all things will ever pursue a course, or espouse a cause, or publish an article or book [or website?] that weakens or destroys faith." - Bruce R. McConkie, Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Conference Report, October 1984, p. 104 (italicized text added)

I must leave it to the reader to decide if FAIR's research "weakens or destroys faith," but there is no question that they have taken a position mutually exclusive to the words of the apostles quoted above. Choose ye this day, Droppings readers.

But as for me and my house, well....

Speaking of Glenn Beck...

In addition to incurring the on-the-record rebuking of some Mormon scholars over his position on "social justice," (see, for example, Mormon scholar: "Glenn Beck doesn't speak for the Mormons I know," and Christians Urged to Boycott Glenn Beck), it looks as though Glenn Beck might evoke, if not public complaints, at the very least some eyerolls and annoyed whisperings from a different group of Mormon scholars: those found among the ranks of FARMS and FAIR.

A couple entries ago, I mentioned the debate currently ongoing between two different camps of Latter-day Saints with respect to Book of Mormon geography: those who believe the events of that book were primarily confined to a relatively small area of Mesoamerica and those who hold that the book's events occurred in a much larger area covering a significant portion of present day U.S.

If you are unfamiliar with the two competing theories, for a description of the Mesoamerican team's position, see this overview of the Limited Geography Theory, or LGT, prepared by FAIR, advocates of the model. To see the opposing theory, so christened the "Heartland model," see, for only one example of many, the FAQ at BookOfMormonEvidence.org.

So, why, then, would those at FARMS and FAIR, proponents of the LGT, have reason to be irritated with Glenn Beck? Well, it appears the popular LDS television and radio host has lent his celebrity and potentially huge influence with fellow Mormons to Promised Land Publications, champions of the Heartland model, to promote their recent 2-day conference held in Sandy, UT.

To hear Glenn Beck's promotion, visit http://www.ldspromisedland.com/index.php?showpage=Glennbeck.php. To hear the collective groan of FARMS/FAIR as their opponent gets the endorsement of arguably one of the most popular and famous Mormons in the church, make a long, pain-filled groaning sound and pretend you heard it coming from the Maxwell Institute at BYU, and that'll probably be pretty close.

Book of Mormon Geography Debate Makes Headlines...

...in Utah.

But, still.

I think it's rad that a debate between two different groups of believers in the BoM has generated so much interest as to be deemed newsworthy... ok, in Utah.

But, still!

Book of Mormon geography stirring controversy: Dueling theories - Faithful at odds over where events may have taken place. (Salt Lake Tribune, 25 March)

(Does it bother anyone else that not all the words in a news article's title are capitalized? No? Just me? Aight then.)

On the one side you have those LDS who believe most of the events in the BoM were limited to a relatively small area in Mesoamerica (FARMS & FAIR), and on the other you have those who believe the BoM peoples inhabited a much larger area covering considerable portions of present day U.S. Each side claims different chains of evidence, and, for my money, the Mesoamerican blokes have the more plausible arguments, but the other fellas claim the support of authoritative prophetic utterances, which appears to be resonating with many Latter-day Saints.

Since, personally, I struggle in accepting that the events described in the BoM actually occurred at all, I don't really have a dog in this fight.

And after taking in the Trib article linked above, a fight is exactly what it is fast becoming.

That the back and forth between the two camps has gone beyond disagreements over evidence and spilled over into accusations that the other side's methods "undermine" the Church, a simple scholarly difference of opinion between believers could plausibly escalate into the sort of spectacle in which critics of the Church would undoubtedly take delight.



Edited to add: This news story, due, in part, to the growing influence of Mormon Droppings, has now made headlines outside the Mormon Corridor. See the Houston Chronicle's Debate on Mormons' geographic origins heats up.