I am absolutely convinced intellectually, emotionally, and (most importantly) spiritually, that there is a God, that Jesus Christ
is the literal Son of God and Redeemer of the world, and that the resurrected Christ restored his true Church in 1830 through a young man from upstate
New York named Joseph Smith. The purpose of this website is to explain how and why I can make such a statement. To do so I will first explain why
I am intellectually convinced. After that I will explain how I am emotionally and spiritually convinced and why I think that the emotional and spiritual
are by far the more important reasons.
I assume that the reader is somewhat familiar with the claims and basic beliefs of the Church that Joseph Smith restored, otherwise known as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. If this is not the case I will refer you to the website www.comeuntochrist.org to gain a better understanding from a resource specifically intended to explain our beliefs. My intent here is not to teach the doctrines of the Church, but to explain why I so strongly believe in those doctrines. Nonetheless, for those not familiar, a short summary is probably in order and can be found here.
Table of Contents
(Click the title to go to the section)
Why I believe that there is a God
Cosmic Fine Tuning
Why I believe God is a loving God, Jesus Christ is His Son, and Joseph Smith is His Prophet
Can Latter-day Saint Scholars be Trusted?
Missing Puzzle Pieces
Are Believing Latter-day Saints Uninformed, Stupid, or Gullible?
The Myth of Objectivity
The Interaction of Faith and Doubt
The Importance of the Spirit in Knowing Truth
Why I believe that there is a God
Many people seem to think that in the modern world it is only the ignorant, irrational, and superstitious who continue to believe in the existence of
a Creator. They seem to think that it is much more reasonable to believe that everything just came 
into existence by random chance. To me, that is not a very tenable position. If a person came across Michelangelo’s sculpture of David in the middle of nowhere
without knowing where it came from, would it be more reasonable to assume that the sculpture was the result of random weather patterns or that there must have
been a sculptor that created it? The odds of weather creating such a detailed and intricate sculpture seem so low as to be non-existent. Yet the stubborn skeptic
might insist that somewhere on some planet in a seemingly infinite universe, conditions might occur that could create such a thing. But what happens
to the odds when that person comes across La Pieta? Could random events create two such different and unique statues on the same planet?
Add to that Michelangelo’s statues of Moses, The Risen Christ, Rachel and Leah, and The Rebellious and Dying Slaves?
Could the stubborn skeptic continue to believe that random chance could create all these statues on the same planet? The random creation of millions of
such statues all on the same planet somewhere in the universe would be the equivalent of what we have surrounding us in the natural world occurring just
by chance.
As stated in one of my favorite scriptures from the Book of Mormon:
“All things denote that there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a supreme Creator.” BofM, Alma 30:44
Modern science teaches about the intricate balance that must exist on our planet to support life. Millions of different
complex systems interact with and sustain each other in ways that boggle the mind. In an infinite cycle, the oceans become clouds, the clouds become rain,
the rain becomes rivers and streams that flow back to the oceans. The rain combined with sunlight allows plants to generate oxygen, that oxygen and water
sustains animal life. Animals die and provide fertilizer that helps the plants grow. The earth contains a molten core that creates a magnetic field that
protects all forms of life from harmful cosmic radiation. The immune system protects the body from sickness. When sickness or injury occurs, the body
contains the ability to repair itself. The list goes on and on. It seems much more rational to believe that there is a designer of all of this complexity
than to think that it all happened by chance.
By profession I am an electrical engineer that designs communication systems. In my experience it is difficult for an engineer to design even the simplest
of self sustaining systems, let alone complex communication systems. Would it not be ridiculous to believe that a cell phone came into existence through random
events rather than through careful design by teams of highly trained engineers? And yet cell phones are child’s play compared to the complexity of everything
that surrounds us.
Cosmic Fine Tuning
I am not alone in arriving at this conclusion regarding the amazing complexity of the universe. The great British physicist Sir Fred Hoyle (d. 2001) said:
“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”
Similarly, physicist Freeman Dyson of Princeton’s Institute for Advanced Study has said:
“As we look out into the universe and identify the many accidents of physics and astronomy that have worked together to our benefit it almost seems as if the universe must in some sense have known that we were coming.”
The above quotes are referencing the “cosmic fine tuning” of the universe, an argument that presents “an intricate and finely tuned ensemble of factors that make our existence possible” (Click here for a more extensive summary of some of these factors). The odds that these factors happened by chance are so astronomical that the only real argument against a super intellect being involved, is to theorize about an infinite number of parallel universes with infinite variations of all of these factors so that eventually one universe would end up with just the right combination; ours being the “goldilocks” universe where intelligent life could emerge. Of course, the interesting thing about this theory is that it is currently unprovable, and therefore requires its own kind of faith to believe.
Now, at this point I’d like to clarify a few items:
1. I am not claiming that what I have presented provides absolute undeniable proof of the existence of God. In fact, my argument is just another version of a very common argument called the “Cosmological Argument”, or “Complexity Argument”, for the existence of God. All I am claiming is that the existence of a super intelligence explains all of these coincidences in the universe much better than—or at the very minimum, at least as well as—the non-existence of a super intelligence. Why is the existence of a super intelligence a much better explanation? Because it is the simplest, most straightforward answer, and I believe this kind of answer is usually the correct one (Occam’s Razor: when presented with competing hypotheses that make the same predictions, one should select the solution with the fewest assumptions). Infinite parallel universes appear to be a rather complicated solution to the problem of cosmic fine tuning, and therefore probably not the correct one. Perhaps we cannot absolutely prove that a pool cue ball hitting another ball is what causes the other ball to move, but that is certainly the most straightforward and likely explanation. If the universe appears to be designed and precisely tuned by a super intelligence, that is most likely because it is.
2. When faced with the “Complexity Argument” for the existence of God, people will sometimes counter with the “Who made the watchmaker?” argument (i.e. what caused God to come into being?). This is a reference to the argument for the existence of a creator, given by William Paley, that if someone were to find a watch on a beach and wonder about the origins of such a complicated and finely tuned object, the obvious answer would be that a skilled watchmaker had created it. The problem with this refutation is that if you go back far enough in time, ALL theories about the existence of the universe and intelligent life suffer from the “Who made the watchmaker?” problem. How did infinite parallel universes come into existence? Just claiming that infinite parallel universes exist to argue for a certain line of reasoning for the unfathomable fortune of our universe doesn’t explain how those universes came to be, any more than assuming that a super intelligence exists explains how that super intellect came to be. So, from this standpoint, all creation theories stand on the same equal ground.
3. What I AM claiming is that God’s existence clearly can’t be DISPROVED. A Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Harvard Medical School named Amy Williams does a phenomenal job of describing this line of thinking in what she calls the “Paradox of Atheism”:
“Atheism is a lack of belief in God. Such a position is curious in light of the following paradoxical thought experiment. Assume for the
moment there is no God. In such a case, the fact is that there would be no way to verify that there is no God. Suppose we wished to prove there is no God. We could
begin by attempting to search the physical universe to ensure that we do not, in fact, find God. However, searching the universe is impossible – it is far too large.
Moreover, any effort to search the physical universe would be unable to rule out the possibility that God exists in a spiritual realm. Because the number of possible
ways to explore spirituality is vast, it is impossible to prove that God does not exist, either by searching the physical universe or through spirituality.
In contrast to the atheist claim that God likely does not exist, theism – the belief that there is a God – has the potential to be verified. This is so because if
God exists, He can reveal Himself to us as individuals, thus proving His existence.
This thought experiment and the paradoxical nature of atheist belief falls short of proving the existence of God. Yet the fact remains that a claim that God does
not exist is unverifiable, regardless of whether God actually exists. Notably, although atheists sometimes accuse theists of blindly believing in God, a belief
that there is no God is always and will forever be blind belief in something that is unverifiable.
The statement that God’s existence is verifiable (supposing that God exists) is not meant to oversimplify the complexity of determining whether God lives. If, in
our quest to find God, we were to come across a being who claims to be God, this would not settle the question. One would undoubtedly want to find out for certain
that any such majestic being is in fact God. Yet having a personal, spiritual experience with a divine Being and becoming certain that that Being is God – whether
by the profound nature of the experience or by other miracles He performed – forever closes the door to atheism and firmly solidifies theist belief for that
individual.”
Answering New Atheism and Seeking a Sure Knowledge of God
4. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has no official position either for or against evolution. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism states:
“The scriptures tell why man was created, but they do not tell how, though the Lord has promised that he will tell that when he comes again (D&C 101:32-33). In 1931, when there was intense discussion on the issue of organic evolution, the First Presidency of the Church, then consisting of Presidents Heber J. Grant, Anthony W. Ivins, and Charles W. Nibley, addressed all of the General Authorities of the Church on the matter, and concluded,
Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored gospel to the world.
Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we
magnify our calling in the realm of the Church....
Upon one thing we should all be able to agree, namely, that Presidents Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, and Anthon H. Lund were right when they said: "Adam is the
primal parent of our race" [First Presidency Minutes, Apr. 7, 1931].”
Encylopedia of Mormonism: Evolution
5. When I was a young man, I felt that society was asking me to choose between religion and science. In other words, I felt that if I chose to have faith, I had to put aside reason, which for me was something I could not bring myself to do. As I went through college I realized how frequently in the past, scientific truths felt at the time to be absolute certainty, were later completely overturned or modified. That is the nature of science. I also came to the realization that many religious truths are either misunderstood, mistranslated, corrupted, or are oversimplifications of much more complicated issues. All this has led me to believe that true religion and true science will never contradict one another. If they appear to contradict, that is because we have either not fully understood the religious doctrine, have taken too literally a particular religious concept, or because science has yet to get to the whole truth on that particular subject.
See: Latter-day Saints Believe that Science and Religion are Compatible
6. Finally, the “Cosmological Argument” does not establish the existence of an anthropomorphic Judeo-Christian God. Furthermore, even if there is a God, that does not mean that He loves and is interested in His creations. Perhaps everything was created as a cruel experiment? Or maybe He created everything but has moved on to more interesting things and is content to just let His creations fend for themselves? Which brings me to the next topic.
Why I believe God is a loving God, Jesus Christ is His Son, and Joseph Smith is His Prophet
It might be confusing to some readers that I would address belief in a loving God, Christ as the Savior, and Joseph Smith as a Prophet in the same section. For me personally these topics are intricately tied together.
The first and most powerful reasons to believe that God is a loving God, are the inspiring accounts given in the Bible of the life of Jesus of Nazareth. If the Bible is to be believed, then God really does love his creations and is interested in our well being. As the Bible states in John 3:16:
“For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
Christ brought enlightened teachings of love, forgiveness, sacrifice, repentance, service, and constant self improvement. Most importantly, he gave himself as a
great and last sacrifice to atone for the sins of the world. It is incredible to think that the literal Son of God walked the earth, walked on water, healed the
sick, was crucified, and then came back from the dead.
In fact, these claims are more than incredible, they border on the unbelievable. Why should a person
believe such a story? These stories sound a bit like the myths about the Greek gods and their demigod offspring. Why should the story of Christ be more believable
than the stories of the Greek gods? Yes, non-religious historical documents do seem to claim that a person named Jesus really existed that was killed in 33 A.D.
And yes, in the religious documents (the Bible) many people claim to have seen his miracles as well as his resurrected body after his death. And yes, a large
religion resulted. But why should these stories be believed? Wouldn’t it be easier (and more convenient) to explain these accounts as hallucinations or gross
exaggerations of actual events? As the wishful thinking of people grieved at the loss of their religious leader? Or perhaps the work of conmen trying to gain
power over others?
By now those familiar with the story of Joseph Smith will recognize how similar arguments can be used in both cases. Visions of God and translated golden records? Angels and revelations? Who can believe such things? It is much easier to believe it to be the work of hallucination or conmen, than to believe that such things could really happen. This particular sword cuts both ways (as many atheists would gleefully agree).
This is where the Book of Mormon becomes relevant. Within the text on the title page of the Book of Mormon, it states:
“To the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that JESUS IS THE CHRIST, the ETERNAL GOD, manifesting himself unto all nations”
I am absolutely convinced that the Book of Mormon is a true history of ancient people on the American continent, and that Christ did indeed appear to them after
his resurrection. Why do I believe this? Because I do not believe it possible that a poor uneducated farm boy could have written a book like the Book of Mormon.
The LDS scholar Hugh Nibley said:
“Joseph Smith's own story of the book's authorship certainly lies far "outside the usual and familiar," and we have every right to ask for special proof of it. This he obligingly supplies when he puts the book in our hands and asks us how we explain it. Books of Mormon do not occur at all "in the usual course of events." Therefore, we have every right to doubt the book's existence, except for one thing: We have the book. The only alternative to Joseph Smith's explanation is to assume …. the existence of a forger who at one moment is so clever and adroit as to imitate the archaic poetry of the desert to perfection and supply us with genuine Egyptian names, and yet so incredibly stupid as to think that the best way to fool people and get money out of them is to write an exceedingly difficult historical epic of six hundred pages. Endowed with the brains, perseverance, and superhuman cunning necessary to produce this monumental forgery, the incredibly sly genius did not have the wit to know, after years of experience in the arts of deception, that there are ten thousand safer and easier ways of fooling people than by undertaking a work of infinite toil and danger which, as he could see from the first, only made him immensely unpopular. This is the forger who never existed.” (Hugh Nibley, “New Approaches to Book of Mormon Study”)
Years before I came across scholarly research done on the Book of Mormon I was convinced that Joseph could not have written it. It seemed too complex, too detailed, to internally consistent. I am now convinced that the wealthiest, most intelligent and educated man on the planet could not have written it in the 1800’s, and probably could not even do so today. On the left panel at the top of this webpage I have included some of my favorite evidences and scholarly discussions on the Book of Mormon. They are well worth the investment of time to study. I’ve also created a convenient PowerPoint presentation summarizing many of these, and other, articles. The slides can be found here: Church Evidences Summary. How could Joseph have included authentic Hebrew Chiastic poetry forms when they were not to be found in his King James Version of the Bible? How could he invent hundreds of previously unknown names only to have those names end up being authentic names found in the ancient world? How could he have included details of olive cultivation and olive culture when he lived in an area of the world that did not cultivate olives? How could he have invented a completely unheard of money system that ends up being a completely usable and plausible money system? How could he have invented the name of an obscure town on the Arabian Peninsula that ends up being a real town? The author of “Of Faith and Reason” states:
“There are literally hundreds of correlations between the things that Joseph Smith brought to Mormonism and things we find in ancient history –things that were unknown in Joseph’s era and vicinity… Critics must deal with the growing number of bull’s-eyes. Generally critics argue that Joseph made lucky guesses, or that any parallels are simply coincidental. But when we recognize the number of things that Joseph got right, the odds of so many lucky guesses and coincidences become staggering.” (Michael Ash, “Shaken Faith Syndrome”)
To me, the evidence supporting the authenticity of the Book of Mormon is overwhelming. The stubborn skeptics (very similar to the ones we talked about before when discussing the existence of God) would have us believe that a poor uneducated farm boy whose family was barely scraping by was really a savant bible scholar and ancient near east expert. He was also a metallurgist capable of creating fake gold plates sufficiently good to fool up to eleven different people. Furthermore, he was a master hypnotist who could trick three of those eleven people into thinking they had seen the plates with an angel and heard the voice of God, and who had the power to cause them to swear to their dying day that they had really seen those things even though all three of them became hostile to Joseph at some point in their lives. He also apparently had access to a time travel device so that he could learn what scholars in the future were learning about ancient near eastern and Mesoamerican cultures so he could put those details into his book. As the years go by, Joseph’s explanation for the creation of the Book of Mormon is increasingly becoming the only rational explanation.
It is easy to claim the Book of Mormon is a fraud if you have not read it nor studied its claims. It is a little less easy, but still possible, to claim it as false if it is casually read. But the more deeply it is studied, the more difficult it becomes to deny its truth. I believe that only the most hardened and stubborn of skeptics, blindly intent on looking for ANY explanation other than Joseph’s, could study it in-depth without agreeing that it must be true.
To me personally, I don’t think the Bible by itself would be enough to create significant conviction within me. It might be enough to make me an Easter Sunday member, but not enough to create the kind of conviction that would cause me to spend all day at Church every Sunday and to work with the neighborhood youth and church members in the evenings each week (when I was a Bishop), to attend the Temple every week, to give up two years of my life as a youth to serve a mission and after retirement as a senior missionary (still to come), to donate large amounts of my personal time to service within church callings, to pay tithing and fast offerings, and otherwise dedicate my life and resources to serving God. But having been supplied with the powerful witnesses of both the Book of Mormon AND the Bible, I am willing to do all of those things, and more.
So why do I believe God is a loving God, Jesus Christ is His Son, and Joseph Smith is His Prophet? I believe these things because the Book of Mormon is true, and all of the other conclusions naturally flow from that knowledge.
Can Latter-day Saint Scholars be Trusted?
One of the most common methods that critics use to try to discredit Latter-day Saint scholarly research and defensive writings is that Latter-day Saint scholars
are not well respected scholars and that their methods are suspect. While it is true that some Latter-day Saint writers pollute the scholarly waters with shoddy
research, many Latter-day Saint scholars are very well respected. Surprisingly, several years ago a couple of Evangelical scholars wrote a very candid and self
critical paper about how opponents of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints needed to stop blithely dismissing all Latter-day Saint scholars as substandard.
They pointed out that many Latter-day Saint scholars have risen to highly regarded positions in institutions all across the U.S. and that by not taking their work
seriously the critics were losing the battle and not knowing it. A copy of this paper can be found
here.
Missing Puzzle Pieces
Having stated how strongly I am convinced that the Book of Mormon is true and that Joseph Smith was a prophet is not to say that I am without unanswered
questions. There are still some unanswered questions about the Book of Mormon. I also still have unanswered questions about events in church history. But for
me the scales have become so heavily weighted on the side of the truthfulness of the restored church that when troubling
issues arise, it is relatively easy for me to accept that we don’t have all of the facts, or that plausible alternative explanations are the correct ones, or
to attribute things to the fallibility of man and the failings of good, but imperfect, prophets. To use a different metaphor, the puzzle pieces I have found
fit so perfectly, and I have found enough of them to see such a beautiful picture, that it would be completely insane for me to toss the puzzle into the garbage
because I can’t make a few puzzle pieces fit.
Given the immensity of the evidences supporting the truthfulness of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it is interesting to note that many disaffected members, and ex-members, seem to be unwittingly trading one set of missing puzzle pieces for another set when they choose to disassociate themselves with the Church. Ryan Dahle, who is involved in Evidence Central (a link to their site is found on the left pane), impressively described this kind of situation at the 2021 FAIR LDS Conference:
“In many so-called exit narratives, those who have withdrawn their association with, or simply their belief in, The Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-day Saints, report that seeming contradictions and unresolved questions played a large role in their loss of faith. As a standard narrative goes, for a while
the believer tries to deal with these doubts by simply placing them on the metaphorical shelf, but the shelf eventually becomes so burdened with unresolved questions
that it, and by symbolic association, the believer’s testimony eventually shatters under the weight.
It should be recognized, however, that questions don’t simply disappear when one transitions from belief, to disbelief, in the restoration. For instance, those inclined
to disbelief might ask why there are so many complex chiastic structures in the Book of Mormon? Or why other people, in addition to Joseph Smith, testified that they saw
the gold plates, and the angel who delivered them into his possession? Or why the accounts of destruction in 3rd Nephi are so consistent with documented volcanic catastrophes?
Or why the Book of Mormon’s legal cases so often seem to be informed by, and interact with, ancient near eastern legal concepts and precedents? Or why the monetary system
presented in Alma 11 is complex, elegant, and has parallels with ancient systems of weights and measures? Or why Nephi’s account of his family’s journey connects so well
to the known geography of the Arabian Peninsula? Or why king Benjamin’s speech correlates so well with ancient near eastern festivals and ceremonies? Or why Jacob’s allegory
of the olive tree betrays an intimate knowledge of genuine olive culture? Or why so many names in the Book of Mormon are either attested in ancient languages, or are
associated with plausible Hebrew and Egyptian wordplays or puns? Or why statistical linguistic analysis of the Book of Mormon… strongly points towards multiple authorship
and away from Joseph Smith as being its author, consistent with his claim of only being its divine translator? The list could go on and on, but hopefully you get the idea.
It’s hard, at least for me, to explain these, and many other features of Joseph Smith’s revelations without appealing to divine intervention, especially when they are
looked at collectively. Stated simply, giving up faith in the restoration doesn’t make unresolved questions go away, it merely transitions the burden from one set of
perplexing questions, to another.
In some cases, an individual’s struggle with doubt may, at least in part, be a symptom of an unbalanced focus on questions that arise from criticisms of the restoration,
while neglecting those that attend the multitude of evidences for its authenticity.... For those who are struggling with faith, it may be helpful to spend less time agonizing
over unresolved concerns and questions, and to spend more effort and energy trying to understand and appreciate the greatness of the evidences, both spiritual and secular,
that God has already made available." (Ryan Dahle, 2021 FAIR LDS Conference Presentation, bold added)
Are Believing Members Uninformed, Stupid, or Gullible?
Many critics and disaffected church members seem to think that all believing Latter-day Saints are either uninformed, or stupid and gullible. They seem to think: If church members only knew what I know they would leave the church. Many don’t stop to think that intelligent and well educated members have probably already come across the same issues and come up with different conclusions than what the critics present.
An LDS Historian named Davis Bitton powerfully makes this point:
“There is nothing in Church history that leads inevitably to the conclusion that the Church is false. There is nothing that requires
the conclusion that Joseph Smith was a fraud. How can I say this with such confidence? For the simple reason that the historians who know most about our Church
history have been and are faithful, committed members of the Church. Or, to restate the situation more precisely, there are faithful Latter-day Saint historians
who know as much about this subject as any anti-Mormon or as anyone who writes on the subject from an outside perspective. With few exceptions, they know much,
much more. They have not been blown away. They have not gnashed their teeth and abandoned their faith. To repeat, they have found nothing that forces the extreme
conclusion our enemies like to promote.
We need to reject the simple-minded, inaccurate picture that divides people into two classes. On one hand, according to our enemies, are the sincere seekers of
truth, full of goodness and charity. On the other hand, in their view, stand the ignorant members. Even faithful Latter-day Saint scholars must be ignorant.
Otherwise they are dishonest, playing their part in the conspiracy to deceive their people. This is the anti-Mormon view of the situation.
Can we see how ridiculous this picture is? It is a travesty on both sides. Many Latter-day Saints may not know their history in depth. But some of them
know a good deal. As for Latter-day Saint scholars, as a group they compare favorably with any similar group of historians. It will not do to charge them with
being dishonest. I happen to know most of them and have no hesitation in rejecting a smear of their character.
On the other hand, your typical anti-Mormon is no disinterested pursuer of the truth. If you are confronted with a “problem,” some kind of “non-faith-promoting”
take on Church history, chances are good that your willing helper can lay no claim to doing any significant research in Mormon history. Oblivious to the primary
sources, unread in the journal literature, the critic has picked up his nugget from previous anti- Mormon writers and offers it to you as though it is a fresh
discovery. Most of the time it is anything but new. It is a stock item in a litany of anti-Mormon claims that serve their purpose.
Why does the charge accomplish anything? Because they don’t tell you how stale it is and of course will not let you know where answers have already been provided.
To you it is new or may be new. Falling into the trap, you think you have been deceived by the Church, and here is something seriously damaging to the restored
gospel. Like peddlers of snake oil from time immemorial, the critic is willing to take full advantage of the situation.
How many historians who are deeply familiar with the sources on Church origins still find it possible to remain in the fold? We might start with names like Richard
Bushman, James B. Allen, Glen L. Leonard, Richard L. Anderson, Larry Porter, Milton Backman, Dean C. Jessee, and Ronald W. Walker, all of whom are thoroughly
familiar with the issues and sources. Joining their ranks are historians like Ronald Esplin, Grant Underwood, Richard Bennett, Steven Harper and Mark Ashurst- McGee.
Many others also fit the description. I offer only a sampling of faithful, knowledgeable historians."
As with these faithful Latter-day Saint scholars, I also have looked deeply into troubling church history issues, although surely not on the same level as these professionals. But since I have decided to dedicate my life to the truth represented by the restored church, I personally have gone out of my way to search out these issues. I have always wanted to see things as they really are and meet hard problems head on. With a Bachelors and Masters in Electrical Engineering and a Masters in Business Administration, I think that I can lay at least some claim to skill in analytical and critical thinking, in problem solving and judgment of coherent arguments. With each troubling issue I have studied, I have always been able to arrive at a plausible solution, especially with the help of other dedicated Latter-day Saints that are much more educated than myself in disciplines associated with each issue. On the side panel I have provided links under “LDS Scholarly and Defensive Websites” to several resources that I have found useful in the past. I have also included several books under “Highly Recommended Books” that I have found very helpful and interesting.
When I was preparing as a youth to serve a mission, I came across a book in a bookstore called: “No Man Knows My History” by Fawn Brodie. This book presented material that I had never heard of before that described Joseph Smith as a scoundrel and conman. It had quotes about Joseph from people of his time period that were very unflattering. It seemed to me at the time to prove that everything the church had taught me was a lie. I was very troubled since I was just about to leave on a mission. The author seemed certain that all of the evidence pointed to the restoration being a fraud.
After about a week or so of stewing in a mire of doubt, it occurred to me that maybe someone much more educated about church history than myself had written a response to this book. I searched the library at the University of Utah and found a short response written by Hugh Nibley called: “No Ma’am, that’s not History”. It described how Fawn Brodie had used second and third hand accounts and many quotes from apostate members with an axe to grind against Joseph Smith. It also became clear to me that Fawn Brodie was an atheist and therefore, she discarded everything that supported a miraculous source behind the claims of Joseph Smith. To her, any supporting evidence was just the result of crazed and delusional minds. She wrote the book convinced that Joseph’s claims were all false. So given human nature it should have been no surprise that she focused only on things that supported her thesis.
The Myth of Objectivity
A common line of attack that critics often use against evidences produced by LDS scholars is that LDS scholars cannot be trusted to produce objective scholarly
work because they are biased by their beliefs. The problem with this reasoning is that there really is no such thing as an objective person, no matter what side of
the argument they are on. We are all psychological creatures. All of us are affected by our past personal experiences and upbringing, by our families and our
cultures. Our minds are conditioned to view things differently based on positive and negative emotional experiences. When we have decided to become emotionally
invested in something or some idea, it causes us to view things through very colored lenses. Many times these emotional investments cause our minds to defend
positions at all costs because of the impact the rejection of those positions would have on our lives and emotions. Because of these things, our minds all have
blind spots. Our minds make assumption based on past experiences and emotional investments that result in valuing evidence differently. Do I have blind spots?
Absolutely! We all do. I often wonder what data I have missed or what information I have weighed incorrectly. I accept that I am not objective as an unavoidable
flaw, because it is impossible for anyone to be totally objective.
For example, in the case of the book “No Man Knows My History”, the experiences in Fawn Brodie’s life led her to be an atheist. I believe atheists are as emotionally invested in their views as any religious believer. This impacted how she weighed the evidence. Dedicated believers who have sacrificed and made large emotional investments in other religions would naturally weigh the evidence related to the Book of Mormon differently than I would because of the upheaval that would occur in their lives if they accepted it as true. They would most likely look at both positive and negative evidence with a much harsher eye. One critic said the following when discussing some of the unexplainable evidences of the Book of Mormon: “Even if that is the case, where did Smith get it from? Given everything else we know, it’s better to assume he got it somewhere other than from God.“ Whereas I would say: Look at all of these incredible evidences supporting the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. No one has given me anything close to a plausible explanation for the existence of all these things in the Book of Mormon. Given everything else that I know (positive experiences, good things that I know about Joseph Smith, the Church, and its history), it is better to assume that he must have gotten the Book of Mormon from God. Yes, there are some unanswered questions, but there are plausible explanations. I am inclined to give the benefit of the doubt.
The Interaction of Faith and Doubt
Even though I am so impressed with the evidence supporting the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, I have admitted that I am not totally objective in that
analysis (click here to understand some of the struggles I underwent when determining if the Book of Mormon is true). In truth, I think that God has
set things up so that there is always enough evidence to cause reasons to believe, but also enough to cause reasons to doubt. I believe that God is all about
moral agency and that if he provided too much evidence it would hinder mankind’s ability to make moral choices. To take this idea to the extreme, if God
immediately punished acts of immorality and immediately rewarded acts of goodness, there would be no moral choice possible for mankind. It would not take long
to force the world to be righteous if every time we were unrighteous a big hammer appeared and smashed us on the head and every time we were good we received
$100. But then we would be good not because we were choosing goodness, but because we wanted to avoid immediate punishment or gain immediate gratification. One
of the most profound things I have ever read regarding the importance of this balance between faith and doubt was written by Terryl Givens. He said:
“I am convinced that there must be grounds for doubt as well as belief in order to render the choice more truly a choice—and,
therefore, the more deliberate and laden with personal vulnerability and investment. … One is, it would seem, always provided with sufficient materials out of
which to fashion a life of credible conviction or dismissive denial. We are acted upon, in other words, by appeals to our personal values, our yearnings, our
fears, our appetites, and our egos. What we choose to embrace, to be responsive to, is the purest reflection of who we are and what we love. That is why faith,
the choice to believe, is, in the final analysis, an action that is positively laden with moral significance.
I believe that we are—as reflective, thinking, pondering seekers—much like the proverbial ass of Buridan. If you remember, the beast starved to
death because he was faced with two equally desirable and equally accessible piles of hay. Having no determinative reason to choose one over the
other, he perished in indecision. In the case of us mortals, men and women are confronted with a world in which there are appealing arguments for
God as a childish projection, for modern prophets as scheming or deluded imposters, and for modern scriptures as so much fabulous fiction. But
there is also compelling evidence that a glorious divinity presides over the cosmos, that God calls and anoints prophets, and that His word and will
are made manifest through a sacred canon that is never definitively closed. There is, as with the ass of Buridan, nothing to compel an individual’s
preference for one over the other. But in the case of us mortals, there is something to tip the scale. There is something to predispose us to a life
of faith or a life of unbelief. There is a heart that in these conditions of equilibrium and balance... is truly free to choose belief
or cynicism, faith or faithlessness.
Why, then, is there more merit—given this perfect balance—in believing in the Christ (and His gospel and prophets) than believing in a false
deity or in nothing at all? Perhaps because there is nothing in the universe—or in any possible universe—more perfectly good, absolutely beautiful,
and worthy of adoration and emulation than this Christ. A gesture of belief in that direction, a will manifesting itself as a desire to acknowledge
His virtues as the paramount qualities of a divided universe, is a response to the best in us, the best and noblest of which the human soul is capable.
For we do indeed create gods after our own image—or potential image. And that is an activity endowed with incalculable moral significance.”
The Importance of the Spirit in Knowing Truth
“I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will
guide you into all truth.”
(John 16:12-13)
One of my most central convictions is that there is absolute truth. The same thing cannot be true for one person and false for another. Things are either
true, or they are false. Joseph Smith was a fraud and a liar, or he was a Prophet of God; perhaps an imperfect and flawed Prophet that made mistakes just
like all of us, but a Prophet none-the-less. If truth could be subjective, the laws of the physical world would never be consistent; one day airplanes could
fly, and the next they could not. Given the idea that there is absolute truth and that God is avoiding direct intervention with His creations to allow us the
freedom to choose good or evil, it is still important that He provide a mechanism to communicate truth to us. One tool he has obviously given us is our minds;
the ability to use logic and reason. Also, God can communicate to our intellects with his spirit by directly introducing thoughts and ideas. I believe that every
good idea, every stroke of inspiration, every burst of genius that has ever come into the minds of men and women throughout the ages have the spirit of God as their
source.
But the problem is that the intellect, using logic and reason alone, is not sufficient by itself to motivate action. It takes emotion to generate action. The perfect example of this is how many people know without a doubt that it is important to eat healthy and exercise, and yet they don’t do it. Why don’t they do it? It is because they can’t get motivated (i.e. they lack the emotional commitment to do it). There is too much immediate gratification (another emotion) in eating unhealthy and sitting on the couch. Eating correctly and exercising are difficult and the results are not immediate (i.e. they are impatient… another emotion). Some people are able to overcome the many problems in life caused by immediate gratification, laziness, and impatience, but if they do it is most likely the result of other more powerful emotions like love, loyalty, compassion, vanity, ambition, pride, or greed (all emotions). I believe it would be much more accurate to describe mankind as emotional creatures than to describe them as rational creatures. Furthermore, as we have discussed, emotions heavily bias the conclusions of the intellect. This is why the Spirit of God communicates not only to our intellect, but most strongly to our emotions. It is through our emotions that God can have the greatest effect. In the Bible, the Apostle Paul describes to the Galatians what emotions they will feel if the Spirit is communicating to them:
“But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance…” (Galatians 26:12-13)
I have often heard critics deride emotion as a means of knowing if something is true since emotions can be so easily manipulated. While I agree that we do have to be careful in basing our beliefs purely on emotion, it still does not change the fact that the most common and powerful method that God uses to communicate to us is through our emotions. He is almost forced to use this method if he wants to have any chance of motivating us to action.
In the Bible, the Savior taught two principles to help us know how to recognize truth. The first indicates that if we want to know if something comes from God, we need to do God’s will (i.e. keep His commandments). In John 7:16-17 Christ responds when the Jews marvel at his sayings:
“My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.”
The second teaching tells us to look at the final results of something to know if it is good or bad. He says:
“Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth for evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.” (Matthew 7:15-20)
This brings me to my final and most powerful reasons for believing in the restored Church of Jesus Christ. I have studied the issues and weighed the evidences
with my mind as carefully as I can, and have become convinced intellectually that it is true. I have tried my very best to live its teachings and I have prayed
to know if its doctrines are true, and as a result I have had countless experiences where I have felt God’s spirit witness to me of its truthfulness. Without a
doubt the fruits that I have harvested from the tree that grew from the Prophet Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon are good. I am convinced that this is because
the Savior is their source.
The doctrines and teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints inspire me to want to be a better person. They constantly occupy my thoughts. A day does not go by when I am not thinking about some aspect of its teachings. When I read the Book of Mormon or attend the Temple it fills me with a desire to be more kind and gentle, more understanding and loving, more honest and fair. When I listen to the Apostles and Prophets speak during the semi-annual General Conference I am filled almost to overflowing with the desire to be more Christ-like and more faithful. I am undoubtedly a better person as an active member of the Church than I would be without it. I don’t believe that I would naturally seek out opportunities to interact extensively with others, to serve others, to serve youth, to work in Scouting, to sacrifice my money and time in significant amounts for something other than myself and my family. All of these fruits are the greatest evidences that I can offer for the truthfulness of the things I have been discussing.
This evidence is repeated in the lives of millions of Latter-day Saints throughout the world; millions of imperfect people striving and struggling to live up
to the teachings of the Savior (often, many of us fall short, but we keep trying); millions of people motivated to sacrifice significant amounts of their money
and personal time for the benefit of those around them. The fruits of this tree result in a people that are extremely family and community focused, that help
the needy in their communities and in humanitarian efforts abroad, and donate millions of dollars and thousands of hours of time every year to the victims of
natural disasters and other calamities. Indeed, the tree is most definitely good.