Latter-day Saint FAIR-Cast

Evangelical Questions: The Holy Ghost by Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC Welcome back to Come Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions. My name is Jennifer Roach and today we’re going to talk about the Holy Ghost. As you know we’re going through the Come Follow Me readings and addressing common questions that Evangelicals ask about our faith as we go along. Our purpose here is not to fuel debate but to help you understand where your Evangelical friends and family are coming from so that you can have better conversations with them, and perhaps even be able to offer them a bit of our faith in a way they can understand. I will remind you about the FAIR Conference August 2-4 in Provo, Utah. You can buy tickets and come in person, or you can stream online for free. Go to FAIRLatterdaySaints.org to sign up for streaming. Did you know that Don Bradly will be speaking too? Don has an amazing story. First off, he is a proper historian, and if you haven’t read his book on the Lost 116 pages you really should. And Don has been working with Latter-day Saint historical documents his entire career. But what I find most fascinating about him is that he left the church for a good while. On his way out he wrote a letter to his bishop that, in his words, was so severe that when he decided he needed to come back he feared that he would not be allowed based on that letter alone. He tells a touching story of how his bishop welcomes him back by saying something like: This is the Lord’s church and if you’re not allowed to repent here, where would you be allowed? So he rejoins the church and has done lots of amazing work since then including on the Joseph Smith Papers. At FAIR he will be giving a talk about evidence of Joseph Smith’s actual religious sincerity – contra what some critics say that he was a charlatan for money or power. Don has this really great way of explaining some of the truly confusing things that Joseph does in the context of his sincerity. I might be looking forward to Don’s talk more than I am my own. Okay, so today we’re going to talk about the Holy Ghost. Our text in Come Follow Me is in the early part of the book of Acts and there is a lot going on. As an aside, you know, we’re not covering the narrative of the story here in these episodes. We’re pulling out issues as they come along where there would be interesting inter-faith discussions. But there is so much going on in the story I would just encourage you to listen to some of the other Come Follow Me podcasts that cover that aspect much more in detail. All of the Scripture Central (used to be called Book of Mormon Central) podcasts do this well, and others too. Anyway, the things that are happening in this part of Acts are very much driven by the Holy Ghost. And that’s where we land today. And we’re going to talk about 2 aspects of this. First, the Gifts of the Spirit, and second, the question of who has the Spirit and how do they listen to what is being said? Gifts of the Spirit And here we are going to branch out a bit from the broad Evangelical group we normally talk about. Under the umbrella of “Evangelicals,” there are a number of positions various groups take on the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit. And there is a continuum – on one side are Evangelicals who really barely want to talk about the Spirit, all the way over to the other side that only really ever wants to talk about the Spirit. Evangelicals on the other side that do not like to talk about the Spirit are worried about one thing, and people who want to mostly talk about the Spirit are worried about another. And to be honest, most of the Evangelicals we’ve talked about in this series are on the side where the Spirit just isn’t talked about much. Those folks are worried that relying too much on the Spirit – and not the written scriptures – has a high potential to lead someone astray because of the subjectivity involved. People on the side that really only want to talk about the Spirit are worried that those on the other side have over-intellectualized faith in a way that has been boiled down to mere cognitive assent without any real power behind it. One of the ways Evangelicals talk about this is by talking about Speaking in Tongues, or glossolalia. There are a lot of Evangelical churches that participate in speaking in tongues, some of the biggest ones are the Assemblies of God. They have 68 million members worldwide and trace their roots back to the Azuza Street revivals around 1910. The Vineyard Churches which have 2500 congregations around the world (they give statistics on congregations, not members.) And lots of smaller groups or independent churches that might have names with, “Holiness” or, “Apostolic” in them, plus lots of others. And when we say speaking in tongues what we mean is that they will sometimes speak in an unknown language – meaning not any actual language you can study – but an unknown language. And then, usually, someone else in the congregation will give an interpretation of what those words meant. In doing this they are trying to listen for what God might be teaching them through supernatural means. Now, in our Latter-day Saint church, most people think of “the gift of tongues” as meaning the gift of learning foreign languages proficiently by supernatural means. Speaking in an unknown language is called glossolalia. And speaking in a known language that you do not have proficiency in is called xenoglossia. These are not “gibberish” sounding languages but actual languages that missionaries might teach in. And we have lots of examples of this all throughout our history. But many Latter-day Saints seem surprised to learn that besides practicing xenoglossia – the supernatural learning of unknown languages – the early Saints also practiced glossolalia, the speaking of unknown languages. In fact, at a church conference in 1833 Joseph Smith opens the meeting with prayer and then speaks in tongues, glossolalia, followed by others who do as well. You can read about that incident at the website for the Joseph Smith papers in Documents Vol 2. John Witmer writes a letter that same year talking about how one of their meetings contained singing in tongues. An article on the church’s website LDS.org talks about Elizabeth Ann Whitney singing in tongues. Brigham Young said that speaking in tongues felt Electrifying. The Nauvoo Relief Society Min Book talks about them. Here is a quote from that book, “Councillor Cleveland stated that she many times felt in her heart, what she could not express it in our own language, and as the Prophet had given us liberty to improve the gifts of the gospel in our meetings, and feelings the power resting upon, desired to speak in the gift of tongues; which she did in a powerful manner.” Now, don’t get the wrong idea and think it was some free-for-all where reason and good teaching could be substituted for speaking in tongues. We also get lots of statements like this one that is in the RS Min Book, but there are plenty of other similar ones spoken by Joseph Smith and others. But the Min Book quote is, “If any have a matter to reveal, let it be in your own tongue. Do not indulge too much in the gift of tongues, or the devil will take advantage of the innocent. You may speak in tongues for your comfort but I lay this down for a rule that if any thing is [p. [40]] is taught by the gift of tongues, it is not to be received for doctrine.” And a short time later Joseph teaches, “As to the gift of tongues, all we can say is, that in this place, we have received it as the ancients did: we wish you, however, to be careful lest in this you be deceived. … Satan will no doubt trouble you about the gift of tongues unless you are careful; you cannot watch him too closely, nor pray too much. May the Lord give you wisdom in all things.” Around the turn of the century, turning to 1900, a lot of cultural things were happening in the church and in society. Values were shifting away from the supernatural and toward science and order. The Victorian era ends in 1900. This was in all of society, not just in our church. But people were interested in the emergence of a slick modern era (such as it was) and not what felt like ways from the past that might have been a bit embarrassing. By 1904 there is a letter in the Improvement Era recounting the former prominence of speaking in tongues in the LDS Church and lamenting the loss. So as unusual as this kind of worship sounds to most Latter-day Saints today it was very much practices in the early days of our church and they considered it a very sacred and special thing. I imagine that talking about that history with an Evangelical friend who practices these gifts of the Spirit or speaking in tongues would be just fascinating. Okay, on to the other part I want to talk about here… One of the questions I get from lifelong members a lot is: How is the experience of having the Holy Ghost now compared to before? Sometimes they are surprised to hear that I’ve been able to listen to the Spirit since childhood and have never felt deprived of it. I think there can be a cultural belief among some that people in our church are the only ones who have the Holy Ghost, which certainly is not true, and certainly not what our leaders have taught. But members sometimes think that – and I can understand why. You might not be aware of this but just recently the Missionary department released a new version of Preach My Gospel. I was delighted to see this subject come up in one of the changes. The Old version of Preach My Gospel says… “We receive the baptism of the Spirit through an ordinance called confirmation. This ordinance is performed by one or more priesthood holders who lay their hands upon our head. First they confirm us a member of the Church, and then they confer the gift of the Holy Ghost upon us. This is the same ordinance that is referenced in the New Testament and the Book of Mormon.” And all of this is correct. None of this truth has changed. However, the new version of Preach my Gospel brings an additional layer of clarity. It says, “The Power of the Holy Ghost is the witness that comes to sincere seekers of truth before baptism comes through the power of the Holy Ghost. All people can receive a testimony of Jesus Christ and His restored gospel through the power of the Holy Ghost. The Gift of the Holy Ghost: The Prophet Joseph Smith said: ‘There is a difference between the Holy Ghost and the gift of the Holy Ghost. Cornelius received the Holy Ghost before he was baptized, which was the convincing power of God unto him of the truth of the Gospel, but he could not receive the gift of the Holy Ghost until after he was baptized.'” And this change brings a delightful clarity I think. The Holy Ghost is what makes anyone anywhere tune their heart toward God’s truth, even the tiniest bit. So of course he is active in people who have not yet made a profession of faith. More Come, Follow Me resources here.   Jennifer Roach earned a Master of Divinity from The Seattle School of Theology and Psychology, and a Master of Counseling from Argosy University. Before her conversion to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints she was an ordained minister in the Anglican church. Her own experience of sexual abuse from a pastor during her teen years led her to care deeply about issues of abuse in faith communities.     The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – Acts 6–9 appeared first on FAIR.

by Zachary Wright Introduction If you’ve ever listened to an argument, you’ve probably heard someone angrily protest to the other “You’re not being logical!”, or something to that effect.  When I heard the term “logic” previously, I usually thought of things like “facts” or “math,” or even more vague ideas like “things that make sense.”  This is mostly true, but there’s a bit more to it than that – and that “bit more” is what we’re going to talk about today.  Logic, at its core, is a methodology for creating and evaluating arguments (1).   Of course, when I say “arguments” I don’t mean shouting matches like the one in the previous example, rather, I mean “a reason given for or against a matter under discussion” (2).  We make these kinds of arguments daily: at work, at home, and even in church. You see, we as people run into problems, and have to make decisions all the time to survive, maintain relationships, and accomplish the tasks we set for ourselves.  As critical thinkers, it’s important to understand what “logic” is, because logic is key in helping us convince other people of our ideas, evaluate the arguments of others, and can help us make those decisions based on the information we have obtained (like from the good sources we learned to evaluate in our last article).  No matter who you are, logic can help you accomplish your goals, make informed decisions, and be the kind of people God wants us to be.  That being said, there is a lot of information to cover.  First, we’re going to be talking about the history and basics of logic, then we’re going to talk about how to make a logical argument, then finally we’ll talk about the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning.  Let’s begin. Logic: Terms and Tomatoes The roots of logic trace back to Greek philosophers, specifically Aristotle.  Most of you watching have probably heard of him at some point in your educational lives, but suffice it to say that he lived through a LOT of significant Greek history.  For example, he studied at Plato’s (another very important philosopher you’ve probably heard of) academy for 20 years (3) and also got to see Greece transition from being a Republic to being an empire under Alexander the Great (whom Aristotle personally tutored) (4).  More important to our discussion today, though, is the fact that Aristotle is one of the forefathers of modern logic as we now understand it.  As one website put it, “Aristotle’s logic, especially his theory of syllogism, has had an unparalleled influence on the history of Western thought.” (5)  As I explain what Aristotelian logic is, you’ll probably begin to understand why; but first let’s take some time to build the foundations of logic by defining some terms. Now, there are a lot of explanations of logic out there, and a lot of them have some pretty complicated figures and materials if you don’t look at them carefully.  Here are some things that we can say though:  Logic is based chiefly on propositions.  Consider the following synopsis from British Philosopher A.C. Grayling: “Aristotle took it that the fundamental unit of logical interest is the proposition, the ‘what is said’ by an utterance, this ‘what is said’ being either true or false.” (6) Okay, that’s easy enough…Aristotle focused on what each claim was actually saying, and what the parts of a claim are.  What are the parts of a claim?  Well, that’s where tomatoes come in handy.  I’m personally not super fond of tomatoes in their raw form, but it’s actually pretty easy to describe tomatoes, especially ones like this: Ignoring the stems and seeds, if I were to say “The tomato is red,” that would be a proposition.  A proposition can be a singular sentence, or expressed in multiple sentences.  For example, if I were to say “The tomato is red” and “The redness quality is shown by the tomato,” those two sentences would share the same proposition:  in other words, they make the same claim.  I borrow this description from Grayling’s book again, where he makes the same point using “white” and “snowflakes.” (6)  Easy, right? Next, we need to talk about the subject phrase and predicate/verb phrase (7).  The subject is the chief noun that’s being discussed or described by the predicate.  In our statement “the tomato is red,” the subject phrase would be “the tomato,” and the predicate phrase would be “is red.”  As you can see, the subject is described by the predicate phrase.  Try playing around with descriptions of things in your head, and identify the subjects and predicates of each proposition or statement you make. Next, we have universal/particular propositions (8), and affirmative/negative propositions (9).  This part is a little more self-explanatory: universal/specific propositions have qualifiers that describe the subject, and affirmative/negative propositions have qualifiers found in the predicate.  Let’s explore what that looks like for a moment.  A universal proposition is one that explains that all of the subjects have a specific predicate.  For our tomato example, it would be like saying “all tomatoes are red,” not just “some tomatoes are red.”  Particular propositions are the opposite – they just refer to specific subjects, very much like our example of “the/this tomato is red.”  Not all the tomatoes are red…just this one.  Affirmative and negative propositions describe subjects as having (or not having) specific characteristics or qualities.  “All tomatoes are red” would be a universal affirmative proposition, seeing as it affirms that all of the subject does have a specific description.  The proposition “all tomatoes are not red” would be a universal negative proposition, as it’s negating the idea that the subject has the predicate’s description.  Consider this example here about birds (10): In this chart talking about propositions about birds, “A” describes a universal affirmative proposition, “E” is a universal negative proposition, “I” describes a particular affirmative proposition, and “O” describes a particular negative proposition.  You can do a decent amount with propositions like this, but there are a few more things we need to go over as we build our logical foundation. We’ve already touched on “quantity” (universal/particular) and “quality” (affirmative/negative) classifications, but there are a few more that might be useful to discuss before we learn how to build an argument.  Grayling states that Aristotle had several categories that he classified things into when he was looking at propositions (6). Species: a definition of the essence of a thing. It’s what makes something that something.  For our tomato example, it would be “what makes a tomato a tomato.” Genus: the part of something that’s not unique to some essence, but is shared by others.  “A tomato” would be the species, “fruit” would be its genus.  Tomatoes are not the only fruit, but they fall in the category of fruit in general. Difference: what distinguishes one species from another.  For example, Tomatoes don’t usually go in fruit salads.  Tomatoes are also noticeably nastier than other fruit. Properties: the characteristics that make up a specific something.  Tomatoes have skin on the outside, and are wet, mushy, and have seeds on the inside. Accident: Basically, a property something has right now, but doesn’t always have.  For instance, “The tomato is red, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be.” To wrap this section up, there are a few things to keep in mind as we continue our discussion about logic and arguments.   First, we need to remember that each proposition/idea can be broken down into subject and predicate phrases, where the subject is the essence/thing, and the predicate is the description of the essence/thing.   Second, we keep in mind that we need to differentiate the number of things the predicate describes (universal vs particular), and also the qualities of the things we’re talking about (affirmative vs negative).   Next, we need to know what category of the subject we’re talking about, namely, whether we’re talking about the species, genus, differences, properties, or accidents of something.   With this baseline information, we’re now ready to explore the basics of making an argument. Syllogism:  The Art of Making an Argument We’re going to be shifting to the topic of syllogisms.  Propositions when used as a part of an argument (not just a mere description), are referred to as “premises,’, and syllogisms are defined as “the simplest sequence of logical premises and conclusions, devised by Aristotle.” (11)  In other words, we can use propositions to make arguments and arrive at a conclusion.  Consider this example of a syllogism (12). P1. All A is B P2. All C is A Conclusion: All C is B. We can go back to our tomato example here, too.  Let’s just pretend that “A” is “tomatoes”, “B” is “fruit”, and “C” is “cherry tomatoes”.  Let’s apply that to our syllogism. P1. All tomatoes are fruit P2. All cherry tomatoes are tomatoes Conclusion: All cherry tomatoes are fruit Each syllogism has the same kind of makeup.  For example, syllogisms always have a collection of premises that are understood and agreed upon as true.  In this example, we have two premises, but you can have any number of propositions here if you’d like.  Conclusions are also important for every argument based on syllogism, because if we don’t have a conclusion, then all we’re doing is making observations.  That’s not a bad thing, mind you: we need to be willing to gain knowledge.  However, if we want to make decisions, we need to be able to learn – or, in other words, arrive at conclusions.  Just don’t forget to make sure that your premises actually support your conclusion (we’ll talk about Logical Fallacies another day). In the introduction, I made a syllogistic argument, in a way.  It kind of looked like this: P1. We run into problems P2. Logic helps solve some problems Conclusion: We may use logic to help solve some problems These are super basic examples, but I’m sure you can see how they can be expanded to make more complex arguments.  Consider practicing looking at syllogisms in work, at church, or even in just the daily mundane statements of life.  These are literally the building blocks of learning and making decisions on a daily basis. Let’s use an example from church history.  In the original 1830 edition of The Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith is labeled as being the “Author and proprietor of the Book of Mormon.”  Some critics have asserted that this is actually Joseph Smith admitting to having “authored” The Book of Mormon himself.  However, not only does that contradict what Joseph Smith wrote about in the next few pages, but it also ignores the important context of New York publishing laws at the time (13).  The argument against the idea that Joseph was claiming to the the “author” in the sense that he made up The Book of Mormon can be summarized in the following syllogism: P1. Joseph needed to publish The Book of Mormon P2. To publish The Book of Mormon, he needed to secure a copyright, which involved him labeling himself as “Author and Proprietor” according to New York laws at the time P3. Translators for the 1824 KJV Bible, claimed to be “authors” of their work for copyright purposes (14) Conclusion: Joseph labeled himself as the “Author and Proprietor” to publish, and secure copyright for, The Book of Mormon while clarifying throughout his life that he was merely a translator for the texts. Now, I will caveat this discussion with a warning similar to the one I made in the last article.  With people, you can never really be sure what to expect, so it’s generally not a good idea to use universal arguments when dealing with people or people-based subjects…like history or religion.  If we believe in the concept of agency, we need to believe in the idea that people may choose to act differently than they previously have.  We can observe trends in behavior, but stereotyping and generalizing individuals or groups too much may lead to unnecessary conflict, limit your ability to work with others, and even sometimes lead you to make a wrong conclusion about how someone will act or react to a situation.  Critical thinkers should be willing to re-evaluate their arguments and should avoid hasty generalizations whenever possible. Deductive vs Inductive Reasoning This actually transitions rather well into the next portion of the discussion.  What we’ve discussed so far constitutes what most people refer to as “deductive reasoning,” or a system of proofs where the “premises logically entail its conclusion.” (15)  There is one other type of reasoning we should discuss, namely inductive reasoning.  Inductive reasoning works by making observations, and coming up with conclusions based on grouping together certain things/people.  Here’s an example: P1. Most members of the church are nice P2. Zach is a member of the church Conclusion: Therefore, Zach is nice There’s a bit of a difference here in this argument.  With deductive reasoning, if we assume that both P1 and P2 are true, then P3 MUST be true, while with inductive reasoning, P3 is only “likely” true (15).  You would have to get to know me personally and make observations to confirm that for yourself.   This is why, in most debates and discussions, deductive reasoning is usually stronger than inductive reasoning (more on that in a moment).  Even so, in terms of definitions, inductive reasoning is best understood as observing patterns in specific groups and making a prediction based on those patterns.   For those of you who have studied statistics, this kind of thinking should be familiar to you.  Observational studies are very closely related to inductive reasoning.  For example, consider the following phrase: “Every raven in a random sample of 3200 ravens is black. This strongly supports the following conclusion: All ravens are black.” (16) Like with traditional statistics, inductive reasoning can only give you a degree of confidence as to what to expect from individuals who are part of a group.  Like I was saying before, even if you’re looking at 1,001 people, and you see a thousand people do the same thing, that makes no guarantee that the last remaining person in that group will do what everyone else does.  This is actually really important to us as critical thinkers because we will run into inductive reasoning very often, especially in the realm of politics, personality, and religion (things LDS people have to deal with often).  People are complicated, so naturally, those with more subjective ideas will have more inductive reasoning involved, even if inductive reasoning is considered to be “weaker” when compared to deductive reasoning.  Even so, there is a use for inductive reasoning.  Consider the following: “In an informal, or inductive, argument, the conclusion may be false even if the premises are true. In other words, whether an inductive argument is good depends on something more than the form of the argument. Therefore, all inductive arguments are invalid, but this does not mean they are bad arguments. Even if an argument is invalid, its premises can increase the probability that its conclusion is true. So, the form of inductive arguments is evaluated in terms of the strength the premises confer on the conclusion, and stronger inductive arguments are preferred to weaker ones” (17) As we can see, using both inductive and deductive reasoning may help increase the strength of your arguments.  As critical thinkers, we should make decisions based on the best evidence available, look at things from different perspectives, and use coherent arguments.  As we do so, we’ll be able to make more informed decisions and analyze what other people say in a more effective manner, ultimately progressing on our path toward fulfilling our divine destiny. Conclusion In conclusion, we’ve covered a lot of material today – and there’s still so much more that can be said about logic, and the things we can do with it.  I recommend that you review this article a few times and take some additional time to study the topics presented in this essay:  understanding some of the foundations behind propositions, building your own deductive arguments, and supporting your claims with inductive reasoning. Logic can help you make decisions and strengthen your communication and problem-solving skills.  I’ll end with one note of caution though, bringing us back to the beginning of the article.  I started by giving an example of a couple of people angrily shouting at each other.  While this is definitely a form of argument, I strongly advise against it.  As Latter-day Saints, we have an obligation to speak truth, but we also have an obligation to be peacemakers (18), and to avoid contending with anger (19).  How we say things can be just as important as what we actually say (20).  It’s a difficult line to walk, but as proponents of faith in Jesus Christ, it is our solemn duty to teach and do as He did. References: https://www.fecundity.com/codex/forallx.pdf https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/argument https://iep.utm.edu/aristotle/ https://www.english.hawaii.edu/criticalink/archive/aristotle/life.html https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-logic/ Grayling, A. C. (2019). The History of Philosophy. New York, NY, USA: Penguin Press. https://www.bu.edu/linguistics/UG/course/lx502/_docs/lx502-predicate%20logic%201.pdf https://maritain.nd.edu/jmc/etext/logic-37.htm https://maritain.nd.edu/jmc/etext/logic-35.htm https://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/prop.html https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/academic_writing/logic_in_argumentative_writing/using_logic.html https://www.comm.pitt.edu/reasoning https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/book-of-mormon-1830/1 (Compare this page with this one); See also https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Joseph_Smith_listed_as_author_and_proprietor_of_the_Book_of_Mormon Smith, Miriam A., and John W. Welch. “Joseph Smith: “Author and Proprietor”.” In Reexploring the Book of Mormon, edited by John W. Welch, 154-157. Provo, UT/Salt Lake City: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies/Deseret Book, 1992. https://iep.utm.edu/deductive-inductive-arguments/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-inductive/ https://iep.utm.edu/critical-thinking/ https://churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2023/04/47nelson?lang=eng 3 Nephi 11:29-30 https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/new-era/2013/03/to-the-point/how-do-i-deal-with-conversations-about-the-gospel; https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/your-wise-brain/202109/why-the-tone-your-voice-makes-such-difference Further Study: Introduction to Propositional Logic  https://www.colorado.edu/studentaffairs/2023/03/14/how-talk-others-different-point-view (This talks about how we can talk to each other in an effective way, even when we disagree with those we talk to…a useful skill in argument) https://iep.utm.edu/aristotle-logic/ (This discusses several of the aspects of Aristotelian logic we talked about today)   Zachary Wright was born in American Fork, UT.  He served his mission speaking Spanish in North Carolina and the Dominican Republic.  He currently attends BYU studying psychology, but loves writing, and studying LDS theology and history.  His biggest desire is to help other people bring them closer to each other, and ultimately bring people closer to God. The post By Study and Faith – Episode 3: Logic appeared first on FAIR.

Evangelical Questions: What IS an Apostle anyway? by Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC Welcome back to Come Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions. My name is Jennifer Roach and today we’re going to talk about apostles. As you know we’re going through the Come Follow Me readings and addressing common questions that Evangelicals ask about our faith as we go along. Our purpose here is not to fuel debate but to help you understand where your Evangelical friends and family are coming from so that you can have better conversations with them, and perhaps even be able to offer them a bit of our faith in a way they can understand. I will remind you about the FAIR conference August 2-4 in Provo, Utah. You can buy tickets and come in person, or you can stream online for free. Go to FAIRLatterdaySaints.org to sign up for streaming. I am speaking on Friday, so you can come hang out with me. But I also want to tell you about a new podcast FAIR has going called, “By Study and Faith.” It’s hosted by an up-and-coming young scholar named Zachary Wright. I met Zach when he was still a missionary and have been impressed with how well he gets what the Disciple-Scholar model is all about. The basic idea of which is that your head and your heart don’t have to be in competition. The scholar makes the disciple better – and the disciple makes the scholar better. He has a few episodes out already and the one on how to evaluate evidences is very good. There are so many areas of evidences that can be explored – this is what apologetics is all about – but you have to have a good understanding of how to evaluate sources or you get off-track pretty easily. And Zach’s video is a great introduction to that topic. So go give him a listen. Okay, so today we’re going to talk about Apostles. What actually is an Apostle? What makes someone an Apostle? Why do Evangelicals have such a different way of understanding this topic? The Come Follow Me readings are working our way through the New Testament and we’ve arrived at Acts – or Acts of the Apostles. Latter-day Saints and Evangelicals would easily agree that the Apostles mention in the New Testament are true messengers. The word “Apostle” literally means, “messenger” or “one who is sent.” The question becomes, “Who is a true messenger?” In our view, a true messenger is one who helps the people know what to do to follow God, to stay true to the instruction they’ve already been given. And a false messenger is one who leads the people astray, burdens them, exploits them. Why wasn’t the apostleship passed down? Often Latter-day Saints wonder with something like, “Maybe the Apostles forgot to pass it down?” Or, “Maybe they didn’t know they were supposed to?” As if the Apostles all died without ever trying. So this is not the common understanding for Latter-day Saints, but Peter actually does pass on his authority. He ordains Linus to follow in his place. Linus ordains Anacletus who ordains Clement 1. We use the word “Pope” to describe this role today, but what they’re doing is handing down authority to act in God’s name. My thinking is that they did try to pass it down. But there is a difference between passing it down and having that priesthood honored and respected. I know men in the church, and you probably do too, who appear to be “priesthood holders in name only.” They’ve been ordained to the priesthood – but they do not bear it in any recognizable way. If you follow the story of what happens to the generations that follow after Peter, you can see how this plays out – fast-forward to the year 950 and we get Pope John the 12th. He’s ordained as Pope at age 18 and things pretty much play out how you’d expect they would if a hormonal teenage boy was in charge of the church. Evangelicals don’t disagree with this storyline. They would call Pope John the 12th a bad example of priesthood too. Evangelical View The Evangelicals certainly can talk about how they see the original apostles as being the only ones, and they have verses they use to explain that. But more likely their view can be summed up by saying that Apostles are no longer needed because we have the Bible and the Spirit to listen to. If you’ve listened to very many of these episodes that won’t feel surprising or non-sequitur to you. Evangelicals are very focused on the importance of the Bible and are very confident in their ability to interpret it correctly. It’s a very anti-Catholic stand of, “I can interpret this on my own and don’t need an authority to help me do so.” There’s a theological level understanding (their biblical evidence that no new apostles are needed) but there is also a cultural level understanding that says each person is charged with being their own Apostle, as it were. They are the ones who must decide what is true, how to interpret it, and how to apply it. The idea of, “true messengers,” isn’t really a category for them. Evangelical leaders, pastors, and others are only “true’ to the degree that the individual agrees with them. It’s probably easy for Latter-day Saints to see all the ways in which this can go wrong, but if we’re looking for the best version of Evangelicals on this they’re doing it because they’re very worried that someone might corrupt what has been handed down. So they only can trust themselves, and not necessarily what they’re taught. This is really well illustrated in the story of Rob Bell. Bell was an Evangelical pastor in Grand Rapids, Michigan. He started a church there in 1999 with the idea that other Evangelical churches had become focused on the wrong things and church should be stripped down to its basic elements: Worship and teaching. 5 years later they have 6,000 members and people around the world were downloading Rob’s sermons – at the height up to 50,000 downloads a week. Bell is very clearly a talented teacher (he was actually an adjunct at my Divinity School and I took homiletics from him, which was a wild class.) He writes a book, makes a video series with a huge following, goes on a speaking tour. He’s basically one of the hottest things in the Evangelical world at that moment in time. He’s 30 years old and struggling in all the ways that you might imagine a 30-year-old would struggle who has been shot to that kind of fame. But he’s created this huge empire that now employs hundreds of people and thousands of people are relying on him for spiritual guidance. And he’s wildly successful at it. People love him. But in 2011 he writes a book that pushes against the traditional beliefs of Evangelicals that those who have not made an profession of faith in this life will be tortured in Hell for eternity. Honestly, the book doesn’t even push that hard. In our church we have a full-blown theology about how that isn’t true, and in Bell’s book he just gives some pushback to it. But people turn on him in an instant. The book was released in March of 2011 and by November that year he was forced out. He’s the leader (and founder) of this huge church, but the people he’s leading don’t agree with his new book (I would actually say he gets a lot of things right in that book) and he’s no longer considered a worthy teacher. This is the epitome of why Evangelicals don’t accept Apostles. Evangelicals generally love, and sometimes worship, their leaders – until that leader says something they don’t like or don’t agree with and then they’re canceled as soon as possible. The individual Evangelical is the one who decides what is true, and which new ideas are worthy of being considered. If you remember many episodes back we talked about their fierce independent streak. This is how that streak comes out when we’re talking about Apostles. So, how do you talk with your Evangelical friends or family about this in any helpful kind of way? Their worry is that by following an Apostle we Latter-day Saints are giving up our autonomy. Unfortunately, there are some portrayals in the media that feed into this -the idea that Latter-day Saints are only allowed to think or read certain things and can never have questions, or never take our time to come to a testimony of certain things. In the realm of church culture, not theology, Evangelicals don’t have a very well-developed idea about, “developing a testimony” of something benign true – at least its not nearly as well-developed culturally as it is for Latter-day Saints. Evangelicals are never going to use the phrase, “I know my church is true.” That’s just not in their culture – it would require them to give up the independent spirit of, “I am the final authority.” A conversation about why you have a testimony of certain things would probably really resonate with them. Okay, shorter episode today – but it makes up for all the other times when I’ve kept you long after class should have been over! Come back next week and we’re talking about the Holy Ghost. See you then. More Come, Follow Me resources here.   Jennifer Roach earned a Master of Divinity from The Seattle School of Theology and Psychology, and a Master of Counseling from Argosy University. Before her conversion to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints she was an ordained minister in the Anglican church. Her own experience of sexual abuse from a pastor during her teen years led her to care deeply about issues of abuse in faith communities. The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – Acts 1–5 appeared first on FAIR.

Evangelical Questions: Baptism for the Dead by Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC Welcome back to Come Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions. My name is Jennifer Roach and today we’re going to talk about baptism for the dead. As you know we’re going through the Come Follow Me readings and addressing common questions that Evangelicals ask about our faith as we go along. Our purpose here is not to fuel debate but to help you understand where your Evangelical friends and family are coming from so that you can have better conversations with them, and perhaps even be able to offer them a bit of our faith in a way they can understand. I will remind you about the FAIR Conference August 2-4 in Provo, Utah. You can buy tickets and come in person, or you can stream online for free. Go to FAIRLatterdaySaints.org to sign up for streaming. I am speaking on Friday – get this – in between Keith Erekson (Director of Historical Research for the church) and Brant Gardner who has written more books on church history than a normal person will read in their lifetime. So I’m feeling pretty lucky. Today we’re going to talk more about baptism. We will jump off of Matthew 28:19: Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. We covered baptism in a couple of the older episodes of this show in terms of authority to baptize. But today we’re going to talk about the Latter-day Saint practice of baptism for the dead. First, I will tell you my understanding of the practice before I knew much about the church. I’m sure you’ve heard people say this before, but feel free to snicker anyway. I had heard of the practice as a child, and I don’t know if this was told to me, or if I interred it on my own, but my understanding was that this meant an actual dead body was being dunked under the water. I tried to work out how this might happen for people who had been long dead becaue it didn’t seem likely that they were digging up dead bodies and the best I could do was liken it to the Catholic practice of “relics.” In casual vocabulary we use the word “relic” to mean any old object from another era, but the technical religious definition of it is that it’s a bone, or bone fragment, from someone who was considered a Saint. For example, you can go to many of the Cathedrals in Eurpose and see their relics on display – and they’re usually small shadow-boxes with a very small bone inside. So, I figured maybe somehow “baptism for the dead” was baptizing relics. I don’t know, that’s the best I could come up with. And as crazy as this explanation sounds to Latter-day Saint ears you have to understand that I was a very religiously curious child and teenager, and as soon as I was an adult I was reading every theology book I could get access to – so it’s not like I was uninterested in figuring out how things worked. And if I – a weird religious kid who grew up into a weird religious adult – couldn’t quite work it out, then you can be sure other people have odd understandings of this practice too. Maybe theirs go odd in a different direction – mind went odd in a very concrete way – but I’ve met very few non-LDS people who can clearly articulate what the point of baptism for the dead is. All that to say, we should give our Evangelical friends a break on this one when they don’t understand it very well. So we’re going to look at the main Evangelicals (and others) have understood, or misunderstood, what is happening in baptism for the dead as a way of helping you see a better path for this conversation. Universalism One of the ways they misunderstand this is that they think we are saying: God has no criteria for salvation. If everyone – even dead people who had never trusted in Christ – can be saved, isn’t this Universalism? They would cite something like John 3:5, “except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” The problem the Evangeliclas rightly point out here is that traditionally God is either Holy and has requirements to be in his presence, or he is merciful and allows everyone to be saved without any requirements, and there isn’t much in between. This was a real puzzle that needs to be solved. Either God is a monster who damns people to hell even if they never had an actual chance to accept him – or he has a path for everyone to meet the requirements to be in his presence. Before Joseph Smith puts all of this together no one had figured out a way for God to be both holy AND mercifully fair to people who had not accepted him. So here is some timeline of how God reveals this to Joesph a tiny bit at a time. In 1836 he has his vision where he sees his brother Alvin in the Celestial Kingdom despite never having been baptized (this is D&C 137) – and in 1840 he preaches for the first time that baptism for the dead is a possibility. But we have to go all the way back to 1831 to see where this started. In 1832 Joseph gets the vision that we now call D&C 76 where he was taught that there are different pasts of Heaven appropriate to the faithfulness of different people. It’s not a binary system of either Heaven or Hell and he starts to understand the requirements for these different areas. I’ll quote from the very best article on this topic, Ryan Tobler’s, “Saviors on Mount Zion,” in the 2013 Journal of Mormon History. He says, “Seemingly mindful of how messy life on earth could be, the revelation confirmed sentiments previously held by Joseph Smith, that God would expect no more than humankind could give. He had written to his uncle in 1833 that “men will be held accountable for the things which they have and not for the things they have not, and this revelation seemed to bear that doctrine out. Here was a God who looked on the heart and acknowledged extenuating circumstances. A full, celestial salvation was available to everyone with a good heart and righteous desires. God would hold nothing back from those who died unenlightened.” In other words, everyone would be given the chance to understand Jesus’ sacrifice, give their lives to God, and follow his commands – even if they were already dead. But the question is still left – isn’t this Universalism? Are there no requirements for entrance into Heaven whatsoever and all humans who have ever lived go there? Up until this point in history the revelation that Joseph had received hinted at the idea that there was a way through this problem, but it had not been spelled out yet. Joseph was having the principles laid out for him, but he had not yet been given a revelation that put them all together – that doesn’t come until Joseph first teaches about it in 1840. But even before that we start to get some hints. Again from the same article by Tobler we get, “In an editorial Q&A in the Elders’ Journal, a Church-owned newspaper, he (Joseph) responded to a question about the fate of those who had died without embracing Mormonism. “If Mormonism be true,” asked the inquiry, “what of all those who died without baptism?” The editorial offered a new and suggestive response. “All those who have not had an opportunity of hearing the Gospel, and being administered unto by an inspired man in the flesh,” it said, “must have it hereafter, before they can be finally judged.” It was a reply that opened another dimension of possibilities, since it appeared to extend the scope of human action beyond the grave. If not only gospel instruction, but the “administration” of saving ordinances were somehow available in the afterlife, the shape of God’s designs for saving the dead changed substantially. So, Latter-day Saints, I know that doesn’t sound shocking to your ears. You’re probably wondering why I’m spelling out what you already know so well….but this is the first time in history where there is a possibility that God can be BOTH holy and fair. It avoids the problem of Universalism which says there are no requirements whatsoever – all are saved without ever doing or accepting anything, and a strict reformed teaching that says: If you don’t have the opportunity to accept Christ before you die, you are out of luck forever because God has strict requirements. The revelations given to Joseph about baptism for the dead solve that problem. Though Evangelicals are still saying, Wait, not so fast. And the problem they raise here is about agency. Agency Their worry – and you can understand it – is that if a member of the church is baptized on behalf of a deceased relative today isn’t that taking away the agency of that person? If you get baptized for them today they’re being allowed to bypass the requirements for agreeing to this whole process. But of course we believe that the dead still have a choice. They can still choose to accept the work done for them – and to what degree they will accept it. Evangelicals will often wonder, “Well, who wouldn’t accept it? If you stand someone on the cliff looking down into Hell, who isn’t going to accept an offer of salvation?” But that’s a very Protestant way of thinking about Heaven. Without Josephs’s 1832 revelation about the various parts of Heaven for the people who accept (and agree to live by) various covenants then none of the work for deceased relatives makes sense – the Evangelicals would be right, anyone would choose Heaven if Hell were placed right in front of them. Instead, the Latter-day Saint conceptualization of this is that each person gets to choose exactly what covenants they want to live by. And yes, living by covenants comes with blessings that are also given, but those who choose to live without the restrictive parts of covenants are not dangled over Hell asking if they want to be saved. They’re being asked: How close to you want to live to God, knowing that there are requirements for holiness placed upon those who want to live closer to him. They don’t believe in baptism for the dead because they believe the dead who did not place their trust in Christ (even if they had never heard of Christ) go directly to Hell with no chance of ever stopping the eternal torment. So right from the get-go they have a very different version of what is happening. One of the thoughts that kept coming to me when I was taking lessons to join our church was: I never thought I had a choice of what to believe as far as eternity goes. But the idea that God punishes people for eternity, even when they had never heard of him, is cruel and offensive. If I get a choice about what to believe I want to believe the thing that most seems like it is consistent with the character of God – that everyone will get a fair chance. How our different views on when holiness matters come into play Now, Evangelicals do something interesting right here. They make a very similar argument that we make about temples. Let me explain. We’re both working with the same ingredients, as it were, but we’re baking very different cakes. Those ingredients are: 1) The problem of sin preventing us from being close to God 2) God’s requirement of holiness 3) The solution of Jesus Christ 4) The need for a physical act to represent a spiritual act – going under the water as death, rising again as Christ rose again. We both agree on the ingredients at play here. But we put them in different order, and it matters. Evangelicals say 1) the problem of sin 3) the solution of Jesus Christ 4) baptism as symbol of resurrection 2) God requires holiness to get into Heaven – and it is Jesus who provides this holiness ultimately. Latter-day Saints would agree about this in terms of baptism for living people. But we believe that salvation is available to all, even if they’re dead. So for proxy baptisms, we place things in a different order. 1) the problem of sin 2) the requirement of holiness 3) the solution of Jesus 4) the need for a physical act. It’s that second ingredient “the requirement of holiness” that everything hinges on. Evangelicals view the requirement of holiness as God requiring only holy things in his presence – and what they mean by that is that the only ones allowed into Heaven will be the ones who are holy (because of Christ.) But when we talk about proxy baptisms there is a sense that we are partnering with God to accomplish work for people who can not accomplish it for themselves because they no longer have a physical body with which to accomplish it. Standing in as a proxy requires holiness on our part because it is as if we are standing before God on behalf of this person. Of course, our holiness is Christ’s holiness – it’s not some holiness we pull off on our own. But because we are going to get our own physical bodies involved, holiness is required. I understand why Evangelicals get upset that we want privacy in our temple worship, but the part they’re missing is that this is a, “holiness unto the Lord” issue that we actually agree on – they just apply that standard to holiness after death, and we apply it to helping in the salvation of people who are already dead. We say that temples are, “a place where heaven touches the earth, a place where marvelous blessings are bestowed, and a place where we can feel closer to our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ as we strive to become more like Them.” No one, not Evangelicals and not Latter-day Saints, are saying that holiness doesn’t matter. We would all say that it does. But they would say – in a sense – that it doesn’t matter until they themselves are dead and will be judged. And at that moment it is required. And we would say that if we want to help our dead loved ones go into the presence of the Lord that our holiness is required now. Well, that is it for today. Next week we’re talking about, “What makes someone an apostle?” and I think you’ll be fascinated by it. I will see you then. More Come, Follow Me resources here.   Jennifer Roach earned a Master of Divinity from The Seattle School of Theology and Psychology, and a Master of Counseling from Argosy University. Before her conversion to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints she was an ordained minister in the Anglican church. Her own experience of sexual abuse from a pastor during her teen years led her to care deeply about issues of abuse in faith communities. The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – Matthew 28; Mark 16; Luke 24; John 20–21 appeared first on FAIR.

Evangelical Questions: Views on Atonement by Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC Welcome back to Come Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions. My name is Jennifer Roach and today we’re going to talk about Atonement Theories. As you know we’re going through the Come Follow Me readings and addressing common questions that Evangelicals ask about our faith as we go along. Our purpose here is not to fuel debate but to help you understand where your Evangelical friends and family are coming from so that you can have better conversations with them, and perhaps even be able to offer them a bit of our faith in a way they can understand. And this video might be slightly different than some of our other ones where I’m doing a bit more compare and contrast, in this video what I really want to do is help you, Latter-day Saint, to understand what your Evangelical friends are taught about the Atonement. I will remind you about the FAIR conference August 2-4 in Provo, Utah. You can buy tickets and come in person, or you can stream online for free. Go to FAIRlatterdaysaints.org to sign up for streaming. One of the presentations you will not want to miss is Jenny Reeder talking about the Eliza R. Snow project. I am a huge fan of Jenny’s. She is a PhD historian in the Church History Department. I was at a history conference last weekend where she spoke a few times and she was fantastic. She is a historian’s historian. I am very much looking forward to what she has to say about one of my favorite figures in church history, Eliza Roxy Snow. We are still in the Gospels and have arrived at the portion dealing with the specifics of the crucifixion. It’s impossible to point to a single verse that summarizes the atonement – and as you will see, that is part of how we arrive at this episode. We’ll start with some history. 100 A.D. At this point it’s been about 60ish years since Jesus’ death and resurrection and he has not returned. Most of the early believers thought he would return in their lifetimes, and he didn’t. There had even been a bit of a sense of, “We don’t need to worry about all the details, or how to pass this stuff down the generations, Jesus is going to come back and it will all be fine.” But that was not Jesus’ plan, so they’re sort of scrambling to figure out how to form a coherent theology out of what is left. Jesus’ apostles are dead by now. Sometimes Latter-day Saints are curious about WHY the truths of Christ were not properly passed down – and this is one of the biggest reasons, in my opinion – they all thought Jesus was coming right back. So now they’re having to think about how to make sense of the story of Jesus in a different way than they were previously doing. That, “how to make sense of the story of Jesus,” is where the idea of atonement theory comes in. Atonement is about the meaning of Jesus’ death/resurrection as well as the effect it has for humans. Evangelicals – or every more widely Protestants and Catholics – are not saying that they have a theory about Jesus’ atonement as in, “I don’t have proof, just a theory.” They’re using that phrase to describe the various ways of explaining what is happening in the death and resurrection of Jesus. The first guy who is writing very much about this is Justin Martyr, but a lot of what he wrote has been lost so we pick up most of what we know about his theory from the next guy in line, Irenaeus. He was born in Turkey but is later sent to France as a Bishop. His tomb existed in France until about the 1500’s when it was destroyed by the Huguenots (French Protestants.) Anyway, Irenaeus popularizes Justin Martyr’s eary attempt at understanding the Atonement in what is now called the recapitulation view of the atonement. In this view, Christ is seen as the new Adam who succeeds where Adam failed. Christ undoes the wrong that Adam did and, because of his union with humanity, leads humankind on to eternal life (including moral perfection). Latter-day Saint friends you will notice two things here….1) This view hinges on the idea that what Adam did in the Garden threw humanity off course. William Barclay says about this theory, “Through man’s disobedience the process of the evolution of the human race went wrong, and the course of its wrongness could neither be halted nor reversed by any human means. But in Jesus Christ the whole course of human evolution was perfectly carried out and realised in obedience to the purpose of God.” So you can see here, there is no sense of a “fortunate fall.” There is a sense that God understood a Savior would need to be provided, but that’s as far as they can go. The other thing you will notice here is 2) the phrase, “moral perfection.” During this time there was still a belief that becoming like God actually meant becoming like God. For Irenaeus, the ultimate goal of Christ’s work of solidarity with humankind is to make humankind divine. He says that Jesus, ‘became what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself’. [Irenaeus, Against Heresies Preface to Book 5] This idea is taken up by many other Church Fathers, such as Ss. Athanasius, Gregory, Augustine, and Maximus the Confessor. This Eastern Orthodox theological development out of the recapitulation view of the atonement is called theosis (“deification”), and they still hold that as a belief. But all other Christian groups (Protestants and Catholics and others) have lost that plain and precious truth. It’s us and the Eastern Orthodox here. So, that’s what the recapitulation theory is – “As man is God once was, as God is man may be.” But that theory mostly gets lost and the next one to take it’s place is called the Ransom theory. Ransom theory replaces the recapitulation theory around the year 400. Robin Collins explains it this way, “Essentially, this theory claimed that Adam and Eve sold humanity over to the Devil at the time of the Fall; hence, it required that God pay the Devil a ransom to free us from the Devil’s clutches. God, however, tricked the Devil into accepting Christ’s death as a ransom, for the Devil did not realize that Christ could not be held in the bonds of death. Once the Devil accepted Christ’s death as a ransom, this theory concluded, justice was satisfied and God was able to free us from Satan’s grip.” Latter-day Saint friends, you will recognize less and less of what you know to be true in these theories as we go along. But this theory does make a very charming children’s story. If you remember in the Narnia books…why does Aslan have to die? Because the Queen reminds him of the “deep magic” and that magic is, in fact, the atonement theory being worked out in Narnia – which is that Aslan’s death must be a ransom to satisfy that deep magic. This theory is the prevailing theory all the way up until the early middle ages – which is not surprising that CS Lewis chose to use it in his books, he was a scholar of the middle ages. Lewis later says that he prefers this theory because it allows us to think of ourselves as participating in Christ’s death and not something that happens without us being involved. But around 1100 another theory starts to gain popularity, the Satisfaction Theory. This theory uses the metaphor of the relationship between a Feudal Lord and his people. The people live on land belonging to the Lord and are expected to produce some of their crops in exchange for living there. If the people do something wrong that harms the land, they must pay for the damages. In this theory Christ is punished instead of us. So in Ransom theory, Christ is suffering to overcome death itself. But in Satisfaction Theory he is suffering that honor or possession has been taken away, and must be paid back. The debt must be satisfied. The peasants must pay back the Feudal Lord for the damage they did to his property. But they are peasants and can’t afford to pay for the damage they caused, so Christ pays the debt for them and the Feudal Lord is satisfied. There is also a rival theory during this time called the Moral Influence Theory of Atonement which says that God was trying to influence humanity by showing a great act of love in sending Jesus. That theory doesnt last long. It morphs into what is called the Moral Exemplar Theory which means that Jesus provided a good example for us in obeying his Father even to death and that we should do likewise. Neither of those last very long and 500 years later they have morphed into what is now called Penal Substitutionary Atonement. Penal Substitutionary Atonement removes the Feudal Lord metaphor and replaces it with a courtroom metaphor. “Penal” like “penal code” means that a law has been broken. They’re no longer thinking of “property damage” as much as they are “rule-keeping.” A law has been broken and the criminal must be punished. The judge in this scenario is Heavenly Father and he is angry at his rules being broken, so someone must be punished. Christ steps in and takes the punishment for us because we could not bear it on our own. Still today this is the Atonement theory most Christians hold. But there are others. By the 18th Century there is a popular theory called the Government Theory of Atonement which basically says that God wants needs to maintain Divine Justice and he does through through a government system. We’re in the 1700’s and obviously there is a lot of thinking about what government is during this time and so this theory picks up that metaphor to say, “The atonement is really about God running a good government.” We also get the Christus Victor theory which is a modernization of the Ransom Theory. In this theory, Jesus is battling powers and comes out the winner. There are also a whole variety of newer theories…There is a Feminist Atonement Theory, an Accident theory, many more. One of the reasons I wanted to go through all of these and spell them out to you is so that you can see how the further away from the time of Christ we get, the more that has been lost, the more the theories change and sometimes even get weird. Saying that plain and precious truths were lost is no joke. Some of these theories see themselves as offering salvation to anyone – some see it as limited atonement that is only for some. One thing you might notice in most of these theories is that God is mad or offended and has to be appeased. And I will compare that to what we believe. In our view, we existed with God before we were born. He sends us to Earth to learn and grow but knows that will come with making some terrible mistakes, including some deliberate decisions to disobey him. Those things would pile up and we would never be able to return to God. So he sets out a plan from the beginning that Jesus Christ will offer forgiveness and a lifetime of opportunity to repent and get back on track so that we can return to the presence of God. Our ability to repent and come back to God is only possible because of Jesus’ role as Savior. We live a life practicing repentance so that we may return to him. “As man is God once was, as God is man may be.” Thank you for joining me for all of this. I hope it gives you insight not only into what other people are thinking about the atonement, but so that you can better understand our own beliefs about the atonement. Join me next time – we have one more week in the Gospels and then we move to Acts and that will be fun. See you then. More Come, Follow Me resources here.   Jennifer Roach earned a Master of Divinity from The Seattle School of Theology and Psychology, and a Master of Counseling from Argosy University. Before her conversion to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints she was an ordained minister in the Anglican church. Her own experience of sexual abuse from a pastor during her teen years led her to care deeply about issues of abuse in faith communities.     The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – Matthew 27; Mark 15; Luke 23; John 19 appeared first on FAIR.

by Zachary Wright Introduction In the last article in this series, we discussed some elementary ideas behind critical thinking. We showed how critical thinking skills like asking questions and evaluating worldviews may help deal with controversial topics behind LDS theology and history.  Now, those skills are essential for approaching a controversial topic.  Even so, we still have a long way to go to improve our critical thinking skills and achieve our goal to learn “by study and by faith.”  That prompts some questions though:  What should we be asking questions about?  What worldviews can we practice identifying?  The short answer to these questions is “You can use these skills on whatever you want,” but to do that, we need to first go over how to evaluate which sources are good and which ones are not.  We’ll be focusing on that topic today.  Specifically, I’ll be going over what makes a good source in general, what makes a good source from a historical perspective, and then give an example of how I would deal with a historical source.  Let’s get into it. What is a good source? You may consider this an odd question to ask, but it’s worth diving into for a few reasons.  Last time, we talked about how critical thinkers are not just passive consumers of knowledge.  Rather, they are active participants in society that are able to use the knowledge they obtain to accomplish their goals and solve problems.  However, there’s a lot of information out there, and just as we would want to use the right tool for the right job (Hammer → Nail, Lawn mower → Lawn, etc.), we want to make sure that we use the right information for the right job.  In other words, we need good sources to rely on in order to accomplish those tasks.  So when I ask “What makes a good source?” What I’m really asking is “How can I determine what sources are going to help me solve a problem?”  Let’s explore that topic. First, a good source has to be in line with the truth, that is, a good source needs to be in line with what occurred in the past, and what’s occurring right now.  Now, this presupposes that there is some kind of objective truth.  For example, putting aside the efforts of the wonderful editors of this series I work with, I can’t have both written this whole article and not have written this whole article.  One of those events had to have occurred: or in other words, one of those things is true, and the other is not.  This also works for more theoretical concepts…as long as we both have the same conceptualization of numbers, 2+2 = 4, not 40.  This is a presupposition that I’m bringing to the table:  There is some kind of measurement that provides us a sufficient level of certainty about something that occurred in the past or does occur now, regardless of whether or not that method is known to us.  That was a mouthful, but it roughly means that events happen, and they can be known with decent certainty and accuracy, even if we don’t know how to do that yet.  Good sources are in line with reality. Secondly, the sources need to be applicable to what we are trying to do.  There is a lot of information out there for us to consume, but even if it was possible for us to learn all of it (in this life), it is unnecessary and impractical to do so.  Some of our problems are far too important and urgent to forego some kind of discerning process when looking at information.  For example, I could explain that the Sun is primarily composed of gasses, but that information in itself isn’t going to be very useful when you’re teaching your kids about basic addition.  Does that mean that the Sun isn’t made of gasses? Or that I’m lying when I don’t tell people about what the Sun is made of?  I would say “No” to that at face value, and I would hope that you would agree with me. So there we have it, right?  A good source is both true and relevant.  Well, a critical thinker would rightfully answer “Yes and no.”  As I’m about to demonstrate, picking good sources is a process that is much easier said than done.  A lot of the time, and for different reasons, the sources that we read aren’t completely objective or aren’t fully comprehensive in their analyses.  This is because we are emotional creatures, and all of our experiences are primarily subjective by nature. Consider the following: “The subjective is characterized primarily by [the] perceiving mind. The objective is characterized primarily by physical extension in space and time. The simplest sort of discrepancy between subjective judgment and objective reality is well illustrated by John Locke’s example of holding one hand in ice water and the other hand in hot water for a few moments. When one places both hands into a bucket of tepid water, one experiences competing subjective experiences of one and the same objective reality. One hand feels it as cold, the other feels it as hot. Thus, one perceiving mind can hold side-by-side clearly differing impressions of a single object. From this experience, it seems to follow that two different perceiving minds could have clearly differing impressions of a single object. That is, two people could put their hands into the bucket of water, one describing it as cold, the other describing it as hot. Or, more plausibly, two people could step outside, one describing the weather as chilly, the other describing it as pleasant.” (1)  I like this explanation because it’s very realistic.  Someone who has transferred their hand from ice water to lukewarm water is going to react (and report) differently than someone who just transferred their hand from hot water to lukewarm water.  Neither of them is lying in their report, they just are reporting their experience, which is primarily subjective.  In this manner, if the source is primarily human experience (which is the significant majority of both historical and theological discourse), then it cannot be purely objective, which makes our job as critical thinkers much more difficult.  This, of course, isn’t talking about all the instances where a source can just be wrong, ambiguous, manipulated by bias, or otherwise difficult to deal with.  Please don’t misunderstand me though, I’m not saying that we can’t trust anything or anyone, as this would in itself cause problems for our goals of problem-solving.  All I’m saying is that there’s no “perfect way” to determine the validity and reliability of a source. In this sense, the trustworthiness of a source is somewhat subjective because we as people value different things, as we have to choose what to listen to and what to not (more on that later).  Even so, each of these should be considered when qualifying what makes a “good source”. The recommendations I’ll make in the upcoming sections about sources are useful and practical guidelines, but this process isn’t a perfect science.  There is a bit of subjectivity here, and this is why I dedicated so much of the previous article to being willing to ask questions and challenge assumptions.  Those skills come in handy here when it comes to deciding what sources to value and what sources to not.  Sometimes, in this process of evaluating sources, we’re going to make mistakes.  I urge the reader to make those mistakes early and be patient with themselves as they learn to evaluate sources in a better way. To wrap up this section, there are a few things that go into what makes a good source or not.  As critical thinkers, we should be looking for sources that are both true and useful for our purposes.  Furthermore, we should be careful when dealing with sources by acknowledging the imperfections of the writer’s report, both in terms of their bias and potentially incorrect viewpoints, but also acknowledging that they’re imperfect by how they can’t be comprehensive and entirely objective in their analysis.  We have to choose what to believe, taking into account the good, the bad, and the ugly parts of each source, and as critical thinkers, we need to choose the “good sources”, or if nothing else, find sources that most closely approximate what is true.  How do we do that?  Well, let’s examine some principles that might be helpful for looking at historical documents. Good Historical Sources Last time, we briefly discussed the historical perspective, and the goals that historians have while trying to work with what people say.  To review, good historians strive to construct a cohesive, accurate narrative using records kept by the participants and observers of certain events.  How do they do that?  There are a lot of great resources out there provided by universities and historians that provide insights as to what criteria make up a “good source” and I’ll be sure to link them below.  Some of the criteria we’ll go over here will be ensuring that we try to find sources that are primary, contemporary, have relatively little bias and that the claims that are there are corroborated by other accounts of the event. A primary source comes from a first-hand witness of the event that occurred.  Primary sources may include letters, diaries, minutes, photographs, artifacts, interviews, or anything else that directly comes from someone who actually saw the event with their own eyes (2).  These sources are to be differentiated from secondary sources, where an event told by a primary witness is re-explained by someone else who listened to or read what the original witness wrote (3).  Now, primary sources have the advantage of having less filtered information, but can often be hefty and difficult to parse through.  Many of them have also not been digitized yet and may take more effort to find than many secondary sources (4).  Secondary sources often are easier to access and can be more direct than primary sources, but are considered to be less authoritative and authentic (5).  In my experience, secondary sources struggle to maintain every detail present in the primary sources and are more susceptible to manipulation than primary sources as a result.  It’s important that you make sure that the secondary sources that you use are well-informed and relatively unbiased (6).  As you can imagine, there’s a bit of subjectivity here, but generally speaking, primary sources are far more reliable, and provide the most accurate information compared to their non-primary counterparts. However, critical thinkers can’t stop there when evaluating sources, seeing as the timeliness and contemporaneousness of a source are also important factors that help determine whether a source is good or not.  This is likely because the passage of time  distorts memory in a variety of ways (7).  However, such distortions can be minimized if an event is recorded within a short period of time (the sooner, the better).  A diary entry, for example, would have fewer memory distortions than an interview given 30 years after the event occurred.  Again, this doesn’t mean that late remembrances should be dismissed altogether, it just means that the critical thinker needs to be more careful when analyzing them, even if they’re dealing with an eyewitness to the alleged event (8).   Relative bias can also play an important role in discerning whether or not the source is reliable or not.  We talked a bit about bias in the previous article, and I define bias as being a prioritization of one worldview over the other.  No one is completely immune to bias, especially when dealing with controversial topics such as religion or politics.  It’s normal to find bias (both positive and negative) in many of the sources that a critical thinker encounters, but extreme bias can either misrepresent information or simply avoid details that may go against what the author says (9).  A critical thinker is able to look at the bias of a source, noting if the bias affects the conclusions of the source (10). Making sure that the claims of a source are corroborated by other sources may also be helpful in establishing a credible source.  If you find that multiple sources are affirming the same details of an event, it’s likely that those details did actually occur (11).  This aggregation of sources can also provide a broader scope of information that may or may not be contained in a singular source, and also eliminates potential bias (12).  Now, this does not mean that sources that have lots of unique material are untrustworthy…it may just mean that they witnessed something that no one else did (as many of us do).  Still, corroborating your sources can provide a great deal of strength to support that an event did actually occur. Much more can be said about how to analyze good sources (for example, we’ll talk about putting sources in their proper context in a future article), but these principles are definitely a good place to start.  In short, you just want to make sure that you’re learning about events from people who were actually there, who talked about the events quickly after they happened, who aren’t extremely biased in their views, and that the details of a source are (mostly) corroborated by other sources.  As I said before, this isn’t an exact science and it’s likely that the criteria that people use will differ somewhat by the individual.  Perhaps some people will care more that a source is early than they’ll care whether or not a source has details that are corroborated in some instances.  Still, following these guidelines can help ensure that the sources that we work with are as accurate as possible so that we as critical thinkers can use the information therein to solve problems. Evaluation in Action That was a decent amount of content, and I hope I haven’t lost you yet.  I wanted to take some time now to show how I would evaluate the validity of a source.  Let’s practice with one that I think would be useful: Joseph and Hiel Lewis’ account of how Joseph Smith met Moroni.  Consider the following: “He [Joseph] said that by a dream he was informed that at such a place in a certain hill, in an iron box, were some gold plates with curious engravings, which he must get and translate, and write a book; that the plates were to be kept concealed from every human being for a certain time, some two or three years; that he went to the place and dug till he came to the stone that covered the box, when he was knocked down; that he again attempted to remove the stone, and was again knocked down; this attempt was made the third time, and the third time he was knocked down. Then he exclaimed, “Why can’t I get it?” or words to that effect; and then he saw a man standing over the spot, which to him appeared like a Spaniard, having a long beard coming down over his breast to about here, (Smith putting his hand to the pit of his stomach) with his (the ghost’s) throat cut from ear to ear, and the blood streaming down, who told him that he could not get it alone; that another person whom he, Smith, would know at first sight, must come with him, and then he could get it. And when Smith saw Miss Emma Hale, he knew that she was the person, and that after they were married, she went with him to near the place, and stood with her back toward him, while he dug up the box, which he rolled up in his frock.” (13) So here, we have a claim that Joseph Smith was actually dealing with a spirit who “appeared as a Spaniard”, whose throat was cut from ear to ear.  There are a few historical aspects at play here, chiefly we have Joseph and Hiel Lewis trying to tie Joseph Smith to treasure-digging practices, but let’s look at the claim itself:  That Moroni was a mere treasure spirit with bloody features.  Is that possible?  Well, let’s use the tools we have to analyze the quote in question. Well, right off the bat this isn’t a primary source.  This source is, at best, a second-hand source, seeing as it is someone else describing an experience that someone told them.  We can also tell from the date that it was written in April 1879, over 50 years after the events of Moroni’s visit occurred.  What about bias, is there bias here?  Joseph Lewis was a cousin of Emma Hale, Joseph Smith’s first wife, and was a devout methodist and antagonist of Joseph Smith throughout his life.  In that same journal, he accuses Joseph Smith of being a “practicing necromancer”; in other words, Joseph prophesied by communicating with the dead (14).  I trust the reader can associate how necromancy would’ve been viewed negatively in the Bible-based culture of 1800s New England, and Joseph and Hiel Lewis didn’t want any association with him for his association with Moroni (15).  Do other sources corroborate Joseph and Hiel Lewis’ account?  Well, one kind of does…Fayette Lapham reports a story about Moroni having bloody clothes (16), but it suffers from similar problems of being a third-hand, late source with some very incorrect details (17).  As we can see, comparing this source by Joseph and Hiel Lewis with the historical criteria outlined in the earlier portions of this paper shows that this source may have some problems with it.  It may not mean everything is wrong with it, but it shows that a critical thinker should exhibit serious caution when dealing with the source. Conclusion To wrap up the article for this week, it’s clear that there are some sources that are better than others, and that we can have a general idea as to what a good source is and what it is not.  First, a good source is one that is both accurate and able to help us answer questions about what we’d like to find out.  We can help establish the accuracy of a source by analyzing whether or not it is a primary source, a contemporary source, whether or not it is significantly biased, or whether the details in it are corroborated by other accounts of the event, in spite of the human error that inevitably creeps up in just about every document.  While this model isn’t perfect, and there is likely going to be some disagreement about what makes one source better than another, the tools and questions embedded in this model of evaluating sources can help us gain insights into the value of a historical record.  Practice using these guidelines as you study LDS theology and history.  What you find might just surprise you. References: https://iep.utm.edu/objectiv/ https://library.shu.edu/primarysources https://crk.umn.edu/library/primary-secondary-and-tertiary-sources https://guides.lib.uw.edu/c.php?g=344285&p=2580599 https://www.gvsu.edu/library/km/primary-vs-secondary-sources-49.htm https://writing.ku.edu/primary-vs-secondary-sources https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3183109/ https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2012/09/your-memory-is-like-the-telephone-game https://guides.lib.byu.edu/c.php?g=216340&p=1428399 https://www.una.edu/writingcenter/docs/Writing-Resources/Source%20Credibility.pdf https://clt.library.jwu.edu/c.php?g=1028305&p=7459813 https://libguides.usu.edu/variety The Amboy Journal, April 30, 1879 https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Necromancer The Amboy Journal, June 11, 1879 https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Historical_Magazine_(second_series)/Volume_7/May_1870/Interview_with_the_Father_of_Joseph_Smith https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1657&context=msr Further Study: Introduction to Historical Study I: Analyzing Primary Sources (This is a professor/historian walks through how to analyze primary sources) Evaluating Sources: Asking Questions About Sources (This is where Pace University Libary helps walk through how to analyze more modern sources, like websites, news articles, etc.) https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2017/02/understanding-church-history-by-study-and-faith?lang=eng (This article by the director of the church’s historical research department is very well done, and provides additional insights that may be useful) https://rsc.byu.edu/vol-21-no-3-2020/method-evaluating-latter-day-saint-history (this paper proffers another similar way of evaluating historical information) https://www.chicagohistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/QUESTIONS-TO-ASK-OF-YOUR-SOURCES.pdf (this helps provide questions you can ask about sources that may help you make decisions about the source’s validity) https://www.carleton.edu/history/resources/history-study-guides/primary/ (This also helps provide insights into what makes a good source) https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/ (This is one of the best collections of primary, contemporary sources out there when it comes to LDS history)   Zachary Wright was born in American Fork, UT.  He served his mission speaking Spanish in North Carolina and the Dominican Republic.  He currently attends BYU studying psychology, but loves writing, and studying LDS theology and history.  His biggest desire is to help other people bring them closer to each other, and ultimately bring people closer to God. The post By Study and Faith – Episode 2: Evaluating Sources appeared first on FAIR.

Evangelical Questions: The Garden or the Cross? by Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC Welcome back to Come Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions. My name is Jennifer Roach and today we’re going to talk about Gethsemane and the crucifixion. As you know we’re going through the Come Follow Me readings and addressing common questions that Evangelicals ask about our faith as we go along. Our purpose here is not to fuel debate but to help you understand where your Evangelical friends and family are coming from so that you can have better conversations with them, and perhaps even be able to offer them a bit of our faith in a way they can understand. Before we get started I want to remind you about the FAIR conference (August 2-4) and tell you about another one of the talks that will be happening. Derek Westra will be speaking on the portrayal of Latter-day Saints in television. Derek works for the church and leads a team that makes sure people around the world have access to information about the church presented in a way their culture can understand. And they do a fair amount of monitoring how the church and its members are portrayed in order to understand what information needs to be available as a corrective when things go wrong. His talk should be fascinating. He is speaking on Wednesday morning Aug 2. You can buy tickets to attend in person in Provo, Utah, or you can watch through streaming for free – we just ask that you go to the FAIR website and sign up for that. Today we’re going to talk about what is, in my opinion, one of the strangest things that sometimes divides Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints and that is talking about Gethsemane and the Cross. Traditionally Evangelicals place more importance on the cross – it’s where the actual physical death happens. And Latter-day Saints have placed more importance on Gethsemane because it is where the Savior suffered emotionally and psychologically for our sins. All of this is leading us into a discussion on atonement theories, but that’s not until next week. It also sort of veers into a discussion we’ve had a couple of times here about, “Don’t you worship a different Jesus?” But this week we want to look at how these 2 different ideas about Gethsemane and the Cross developed and what exactly is going on. And before I even get very far I must refer you to two resources that help. One is Elder Holland’s 2022 talk called, “Lifted Up Upon the Cross,” and the other is the FAIR article titled The Garden and The Cross. Both are very helpful and will add to this discussion. Use of symbols As usual around here we start with some history. Elder Holland mentions in his talk, and you can read about this in lots of other places, that the cross was not immediately a symbol for the early Christians. And it’s not because they didn’t use symbols. They used a lot of symbols, in part because a huge percentage of the population was illiterate, but also because at various times in the first 4 centuries of Christianity, it was illegal to be a Christian so they sometimes had to speak in a kind of code. Some of those early symbols would mean something to us today like the dove, the good shepherd, and the lamb, others wouldn’t immediately speak to us. For example, early Christians used the peacock as a symbol of the death and resurrection of Christ. Why a peacock? They had a cultural belief at that time that the flesh from a peacock didn’t decay after death. I don’t actually know why they thought that – certainly all it would take is killing 1 of them and seeing that its flesh actually did decay to disprove that, but it was a common cultural belief at the time. So a peacock was used to represent Christ’s rising from the dead. They also used the pelican as a symbol for Christ’s death. Why? In nature, pelicans have a behavior of sometimes wounding themselves called “vulning” so that their young can eat their flesh if there is no other food source available. The early believers looked at this and likened it to what Christ was doing for us on the cross. Eventually, around the 4th century, it starts to become a more well-used symbol. How did the cross develop as a symbol in America? There is a story told in the journal “Church History” (a Protestant journal broadly about Christian history) where in 1834 the rector of St. Mary’s Episcopal Church in Burlington, New Jersey decides to place a cross on top of their newly designed church. And basically, the entire community of Protestants in that city lose their minds over it. In that era, it is just not the thing Protestants do. They called it an “outward emblem of Popery.” Using a cross is a very Catholic thing in that era. But things were starting to shift. The Victorian Era – starting around the 1840’s – ushered in an era of fascination with nature. And the Protestants who had gotten interested in the cross as a symbol capitalized on this subtly introducing crosses into Christian worship that were covered in flowers, leaves, or vines. The symbolism was obvious – something beautiful and alive sprouting out of something intended to cause death. Into the 1900’s there is a growing interest in neogothic architecture, which certainly included crosses. And many new churches in America wanted to have buildings in the neogothic style. So during this era the flowers and vines on crosses disappear and we start to see replicas of medieval crosses. During all of this, Baptist churches were the longest hold-outs. They were staunchly anti-Catholic and only started using crosses when one of their preachers had the idea that reclaiming this Catholic symbol might trick Catholics into listening to them, and then they could teach them their Baptist ways. So, in the 1800’s there is a lot of movement on how people are thinking of the cross. But our church was being formed in the 1830’s, primarily with converts from other Protestant faiths who had not yet come to embrace the use of a cross. And by the 1850’s the church is forced into taking an isolationist stance on a lot of things and wasn’t really participating in much dialogue with other faiths, so the movement that was happening between various Protestant groups on the cross was not really happening in our church. 100 years later most Protestant groups had developed to the point where a cross was not just okay, it was expected. But our church developed differently and for us, 100 years later, we see David O. McKay saying that the cross is, “A Catholic form of worship,” which is very much what Protestants were saying 100 years earlier. So how did the Latter-day Saint emphasis on Gethsemane come to be? Well, it didn’t come out of nowhere. The Evangelical criticism is that we’re trying to avoid the reality of Jesus’ death on the cross, so we moved the emphasis to Gethsemane to make less of Jesus’ death. That’s not what we’re doing, but that’s what they say we’re doing. What I think is actually happening there is that human beings need symbols to help them understand complex spiritual topics. And what Jesus is doing in dying and rising again is very complex. The cross wasn’t really available to us as a symbol for the historic reasons I mentioned earlier, and we needed something to help us understand the ways in which Christ suffered for us. And because Jesus suffered in both places – Gethsemane and the cross- it made sense to turn to Gethsemane as a symbol. So in 1957, we have David O McKay saying that its not wise to use a cross because it’s still seen as too Catholic, 40 years later things have changed enough that it makes sense for Gordon B Hinkley to say, “It was the redemption which He worked out in the Garden of Gethsemane and upon the cross of Calvary which made His gift immortal, universal, and everlasting.” For me, all of this brings to mind a quote from the Catholic scholar Stephen H. Webb. Webb never converts to our church, but he was very friendly and fair to our beliefs. He has a great quote that says members of our church, “depart(s) from traditional theology most radically only when it is trying to do justice to the honor and glory of Jesus Christ.” And in another place, he says that our, “Christology born out of a surplus rather than an insufficiency of faith. It puts creedal Christians in the odd position of saying that Mormons make too much of Jesus.” And I think that’s what’s happening here. Because some of our theology happened in a bit of isolation from other groups we were able to develop an entire area of understanding about Christ’s suffering that Protestants and Evangelicals didn’t. And now we find ourselves in a place of being able to say that both are good AND the entire reason for using a symbol in the first place is to point to a reality. Symbols are not things on their own, they point to something else. And this is how Elder Holland is able to make the point he is making in his “Lifted Up upon the Cross” talk. His point being that a symbol is nothing if we don’t take the reality of the thing seriously. Speaking of our faith he says, “It has nothing to do with pendants or jewelry, with steeples or signposts. It has to do, rather, with the rock-ribbed integrity and stiff moral backbone that Christians should bring to the call Jesus has given to every one of His disciples. In every land and age, He has said to us all, “If any man [or woman] will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.” Stephen Webb is right. This isn’t us trying to get out of taking Jesus seriously as Evangelicals sometimes claim – it’s us taking Jesus very seriously. And if you can get to that part of the conversation with your Evangelical friends or family members, you will find a great deal in common as this is what many of them want to do too. My hope is that in talking about all of this today we’re getting ready to talk about the atonement next week. I’ll give you a sneak peak….in our church we talk about “the atonement” in the singular. In the Evangelical world, they talk about, “atonement theories” in the plural. And it’s fascinating what’s going on there. I think you’ll be really interested. So join me next week for that. I look forward to seeing you. More Come, Follow Me resources here.   Jennifer Roach earned a Master of Divinity from The Seattle School of Theology and Psychology, and a Master of Counseling from Argosy University. Before her conversion to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints she was an ordained minister in the Anglican church. Her own experience of sexual abuse from a pastor during her teen years led her to care deeply about issues of abuse in faith communities. The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – Luke 22; John 18 appeared first on FAIR.

On this episode, Nathan Richardson joins for a discussion about the temple Endowment and Initiatory ordinances. Nathan Richardson is a speech-language pathologist who has published research articles in academic journals. He is also a book designer and has worked for multiple publishing houses, including the BYU Religious Studies Center and BYU Studies, as well as owned his own document design business. He is a frequent speaker at BYU-I Education Week. He received a bachelor’s degree in English and a master’s degree in communication disorders from BYU and works for a private family in the Middle East. He designs gospel study aids and a study edition of the scriptures on his website NathanRichardson.com. Jacob Crapo was born and now resides in Las Vegas, Nevada. He served his mission in Upstate New York and was an ordinance worker in the Las Vegas Temple. One of Jacob’s dreams is to help build a temple. He is an electrician by trade but his real passion is helping others access the powers of heaven. The post Cornerstone: A FAIR Temple Preparation Podcast – Episode 4: The Endowment with Nathan Richardson appeared first on FAIR.

Evangelical Questions: Grace and Works by Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC If ye love me, keep my commandments. (John 14:15) Welcome back to Come Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions. My name is Jennifer Roach and today we’re going to talk about Grace and Works. As you know we’re going through the Come Follow Me readings and addressing common questions that Evangelicals ask about our faith as we go along. Our purpose here is not to fuel debate but to help you understand where your Evangelical friends and family are coming from so that you can have better conversations with them, and perhaps even be able to offer them a bit of our faith in a way they can understand. Before we get started I want to remind you about the FAIR Conference and tell you about another one of the talks that will be happening. Stephen Smoot is a young scholar who was at Book of Mormon Central for a while and is now working at the BH Roberts Foundation, and his area of specialty is the Book of Abraham. Recently BYU Studies put out a 300-page guide to the Book of Abraham and I think Smoot co-authors every chapter in that publication, or just about. There simply are no serious conversations going on these days about the Book of Abraham that Stephen is not somehow involved in. He’s spoken at FAIR several times and is just incredibly insightful and well-studied. You can come and join us in person in Provo, Utah August 2-4, or you can stream online for free – we just ask that you go to the website and register for access for planning purposes. Stephen is speaking on Wednesday, I am speaking on Friday. The schedule is up on the FAIR website if you want to see who else is speaking. Today we will (finally) get into one of the topics that has come up probably more than any other in the last 50 years of conversation between Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints: Grace vs. Works. Maybe the only thing that comes up more is, “You worship a different Jesus.” But Grace v. Works is right up there. We touched on this a tiny bit back in Episode 6 when we talked about, “What must I do to be saved?’ but today we go in a bit deeper. The traditional argument goes something like this: Evangelicals say Latter-day Saints are trying to earn salvation through good works – and Latter-day Saints say Evangelicals are practicing a cheap grace where all they do is pray a prayer and never have to become like Jesus. I think, as we go through this, you’re going to see that the questions aren’t even really formed in a helpful way and there’s probably a better way to look at it. Both the Latter-day Saint listeners and the Evangelical listeners to this episode will probably be surprised to know that one of the most hotly anticipated books coming out this year in the Evangelical press is called, “The Doctrine of Good Works: Reclaiming a Neglected Protestant Teaching.” Baker Academic is putting it out and its 3 authors are all Phd’s with impeccable Evangelical credentials. They are serious scholars who write about serious topics. Unfortunately, the book isn’t out until the end of July. I was able to read about 30 pages of it online and was fascinated by the beginning. “To say that Christianity has a crisis of credibility is an understatement…..people are hardly interested in the truth claims of Christianity unless and until they see that it matters….They will not be inclined to give serious consideration to the truth claims of Christianity until there is something about it that makes them hope that it might be true.” They point out that good Christians are constantly told things like, “If you’ve said a sinner’s prayer, your salvation is guaranteed,” and “Rejoice in the fact that there is nothing you can do to help your salvation along. Only Christ can do that for you.” They go on to set out their case that the thing that gives people hope that it might be true is in fact good works. “God is a working God,” they say, “and we are made in his image.” All of that to say, there is movement on this topic. A lot of the discussion you can find online about this topic has not moved much past the over-simplified works-grace debate that was happening 50 years ago. The old version of this debate oversimplifies things to a point that kind of doesn’t make much sense. And actually conceptualization of “Grace vs. Works” is sort of misleading as if one side believes we are saved through grace alone, and the other side believes we are saved through works alone. And while there are lots of groups who affirm salvation through grace alone, I don’t know of any group that affirms salvation through works alone. Further, part of the problem here is that Protestants, especially Evangelicals, would have a very different concept of what we are being saved toward. In the Evangelical world the question of, “Are we saved by faith alone, or does faith require action as well?” is something very different than what Latter-day Saints are asking when they say, “Why wouldn’t faith require action – faith without works is dead.” But we’re talking about 2 different things here. The Evangelical is talking about eternal salvation – and remember, as we talked about in a previous episode, for them salvation is a binary choice. You either go to Heaven (they have 1 conceptualization of Heaven) or you go to eternal torment in Hell. So when they say, “Faith alone is required for salvation,” they are saying, “Only faith in Jesus Christ can save you from eternal damnation.” And when they hear us say, “Faith without works is dead” in the context of talking about salvation what they hear is, “You’re trying to add to the work Jesus already did on the cross, therefor you are saying his work was not enough to get you into Heaven.” This is hard for Evangelicals for 2 reasons, both of them pretty understandable….1) They feel very loyal to Jesus and are sensitive to anyone saying what he did is not enough. But also 2) They have a hard time wrapping their minds around the fact that we conceptualize eternity so differently than they do. For Latter-day Saints there is a reality called “outer darkness” but very few people end up there. While for Evangelicals, it depends on who you talk to, but they would believe a pretty good percentage of people end up in Hell. So, you can see why this conversation bugs them so much – for them having the wrong beliefs about Jesus means you’re risking eternal torment. For them, the question is, “Will you even make it to Heaven?” While for us the question is, “Okay, you’re going to spend eternity in one of the areas of Heaven, how do you want to prepare for life there?” And those are 2 really different questions. Latter-day Saints are not trying to win God’s favor, we’re trying to get ready for eternity. So the grace-works question is really a hard conversation sometimes. If the conversation can most past that initial roadblock, it actually can get kind of interesting because the question becomes, “In what way do Latter-day Saints believe in grace?” and, “In what way do Evangelicals practice good works?” And when it’s put this way you start to see how in which we might learn from each other. Interestingly Terryl Givens has an article about this in the BYU Studies Quarterly magazine (I think it’s from last year, it’s volume 60 titled, “Yet to be Revealed: Open Questions in Latter-day Saint Theology) And he starts out by pointing out that there has been an increase in the material produced by Latter-day Saints talking about Grace – from General Authorities all the way down. And that this has caused some Evangelicals to wonder if Latter-day Saints are making a course correction toward a more Protestant theology. But from Givens’s point of view, and I agree with him, the term “Grace” must be given a, “uniquely Restorationist point of view. He says, “Restoration doctrine asserts that it was this act of setting his (God’s) heart upon man that constituted the majesty and miracle of God’s grace….Deep in the primeval past when God found himself in the midst of numerous spirit intelligences before the earth was formed or the first man or woman organized, grace irrupted into the universe. We might consider grace the name of his relentless, inexhaustible, and ultimately irresistible invitation.” In this sense, grace is like the invitation to the party. You get to attend! But the point isn’t to just get an invitation, the point is to go to the party and talk and dance and eat. To do the actual things. The invitation is how you get to go and do the things. It’s like our invitation to live this life – God placed us here, and we got invited to this great party, this life on Earth, so what activities will we get to do at the party? In the Evangelical view, grace gives you an invitation to a party – but that party happens in eternity, not as much here. And instead of figuring out what you want to do at the party, you are trying to figure out if you’re going to be allowed to go to th party – or if you’re going to be thrown into a lake of fire. I don’t say that to be glib, but to show that we’re answering very different questions. As for what it’s like for Evangelicals, with everything I said still being true, there is quite a bit of variety in how they approach the issues of works. In the last 20 or so years the Evangelical groups who seem to care more about works are the ones who are more interested in social issues. For example, they see the “work” of caring for the poor to be an important expression of faith. They would be very careful to distinguish that from a “saving faith” but it is still important to them to live out their faith in such a way that it makes a difference in the lives of the vulnerable. And most Evangelicals would have no problem seeing the goodness of something like that. Where they start to wring their hands and worry though is when something like the, “American Worldview Inventory” study came out in 2020. This is a study that surveyed 2,000 Americans and found 30% of them called themselves Christians. And of that 30% half also said, “Good works will get you into Heaven.” Now, they worry about this because they think this is what we’re saying, “Good works will get you into Heaven.” Which is of course not at all what we’re saying. We believe just about everybody gets an invitation to the party, and ask, “what are you going to do at the party?” Another major influence in how Evangelicals think about grace and works comes through the Methodist Church. The Methodist Church was started in the late 1700’s by the Wesley brothers essentially because they were eager to go do some good works. They had been Anglicans and things were a bit stifled for them, so they create “the Method” (Methodists) which is also called their “Rule of Life” and it’s number one rule is to avoid evil, and the number two rule is to do good. So their tradition developed in a way that deeply cared about good works. And they have had a great deal of influence over what Evangelicals become. The Pew Research Center also tells us that about 75% of Evangelicals believe helping the poor and needy is an important part of their faith. But at the same time, it is a somewhat optional practice, less than 25% of them believe in tithing through their local church, and even those who do are most likely to be in a church where the congregation is just covering its own expenses for staff, property and programming – without much left over for doing good works. We will get into this topic again, we’re almost out of the gospels in Come Follow Me. We’ve got about another month, and then we get to the letters which give us some deeper levels to talk about. I actually really love that we spend 6 months studying the gospels. That’s as it should be. But it will be fun to get into some other things as well. Thank you for being with me today. Come back next time and we’ll do some more. More Come, Follow Me resources here.   Jennifer Roach earned a Master of Divinity from The Seattle School of Theology and Psychology, and a Master of Counseling from Argosy University. Before her conversion to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints she was an ordained minister in the Anglican church. Her own experience of sexual abuse from a pastor during her teen years led her to care deeply about issues of abuse in faith communities. The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – John 14–17 appeared first on FAIR.

by Zachary Wright Have you ever wanted to problem-solve better? Not just the daily issues we deal with, but the massive world-changing problems we deal with constantly? What about wanting to be more effective in your study? Have you ever wanted to learn to differentiate between what’s true and what’s not? Maybe you’re not as ambitious, but you want to be a better disciple of Jesus Christ and learn more about Him and His gospel. All these skills, and more, apply at least some form of critical thinking skills, and I’m here to help you learn how to be a more effective critical thinker. Throughout this series, we’ll explore some basic principles behind critical thinking and practice critical thinking about LDS theology and history, answering questions about them. We’ll discuss basic logic principles, learn to evaluate sources, and become informed about topics orbiting the restored gospel. Join us every other Sunday to learn how to become a better thinker, debater, and advocate for your beliefs. With the skills you learn in this series, you’ll be able to be more effective in every single field of your life and find ways to help other people in meaningful ways. I invite you to join me as we learn together, starting our journey of learning “by study and by faith.” Episode 1: What is Critical Thinking? Introduction When I began my research on Critical Thinking in preparation for this series, I came across an article that described “The Emerging Crisis in Critical Thinking”.  Consider the following: “Unfortunately, rather than creating a generation of “super-geniuses,” there are emerging reports that although modern students are quite adept at memorizing and regurgitating facts presented in class or in reading materials, the ability to reason, think critically, and problem-solve has actually been dramatically reduced in recent years.” (1)  I didn’t need an article to tell me that critical thinking is something that modern schools struggle to incorporate.  I went to charter schools for most of my life, but while it seemed that my teachers seemed to pay lip service to the almighty “critical thinking skills,” I don’t recall them ever sitting down and explaining to the students “Critical thinking includes X, Y, and Z”.  Why would they?  It’s not in the syllabus. It wasn’t until I was about 18 that I began picking up on what it actually meant.  Critical thinking has far more to do with how you go about learning and solving problems, and far less to do with what you’re actually learning.  You don’t need a college degree in American Religious History to think critically about Joseph Smith’s religious and cultural background, and you don’t need a degree in Biblical Greek to think critically about the New Testament texts.  While such knowledge may be helpful, it is not essential to employ critical thinking skills.  Latter-day Saints should know and care about these critical thinking skills to help others, solve problems, become good citizens, and “contend for the faith” (Jude 1:3).  So, what does it mean to think critically?  Let’s explore that topic for a moment. What is Critical Thinking? If I had to boil down the concept of “critical thinking” to one concise statement, I’d probably summarize it as “Us making sure that we have good reasons for what we believe” (2).  How is this done?  Well, according to the University of Louisiana, the process of critical thinking includes an ability “to question; to acknowledge and test previously held assumptions; to recognize ambiguity; to examine, interpret, evaluate, reason, and reflect; to make informed judgments and decisions; and to clarify, articulate, and justify positions” (3).  Fair enough; but consider this for a moment, as you were reading this list, did you stop and consider what each item of the list meant?  Did you think about how this list may apply at home?  School?  Work?  Church?  Such practices are important aspects of critical thinking, but if you’re like me, you probably didn’t the first time around…and that’s okay.  Critical thinking does NOT come naturally to people any more than running a marathon comes naturally to people.  Like with any skill, it comes with deliberate practice, and experience…lots of it. If I’ve succeeded today, you will be able to practice these critical thinking skills more effectively than you were able to before.  This doesn’t mean that we’ll go over every aspect of this definition here, but we will be going over some of it.  Specifically, we’ll talk about how to ask effective questions, look at events from different perspectives, and then discuss what it looks like to be a critical thinker in conjunction with the spirit. Asking Effective Questions An essential aspect of critical thinking is the ability to ask important questions.  One pair of researchers noted that in relation to critical thinking, asking questions can: stimulate the brain, open communication/create an exchange, prompt discovery of what others know, encourage listening, provide the opportunity to acknowledge other ideas, and lead to the process of discovery (4).  Consider the following: “Not only do questions and critical thought have an appropriate place in the Church, but as President Dieter F. Uchtdorf has pointed out, the Church would not exist without it. He explains that the doctrinally loaded and foundational experience of the First Vision came as the result of Joseph Smith’s critical thought toward existing churches and a desire to know which he should join. Knowing for ourselves if the church that was restored through Joseph Smith’s efforts is truly the “only true and living church” (D&C 1:30) can be done only by following his lead and “ask[ing] of God” (James 1:5). “Asking questions,” President Uchtdorf said, “isn’t a sign of weakness; it’s a precursor of growth.” (5) With both secular and religious voices united in the call for asking questions, it almost goes without saying that we should be willing to ask important questions when dealing with important subjects.  Why should it be any different when dealing with theological and historical questions regarding the church? So, what kind of questions should we be asking?  Well, cursory internet searches may be helpful here (6), but it may be best to begin by focusing on the basic idea of critical thinking:  How do we know what we know?  This may include questions such as: How does this source claim to be getting their information? How reliable is that method of getting information? Do other ways of getting information corroborate this source? Is what the source claims being overly distorted by bias, positive or negative? When was the source speaking/writing about the subject? A case study of how a critical thinker may approach a subject with good questions may be helpful here.  Consider how a critic of the church may assert that Joseph Smith manufactured a set of fake (not gold) metal plates, and presented those plates as the ancient record of the Book of Mormon.  Is that possible?  Sure, but a critical thinker would ask questions like: Where did Joseph Smith learn to make such plates? Who taught him to create metal plates? Did anyone contemporary to his time mention his ability to make plates? What materials did Joseph use?  Where did he obtain these materials? Where did he manufacture these plates? When did he have time to make these plates? I could continue, but this should suffice.  Do you see how all of these are important questions to ask when dealing with historical issues in LDS history?  Anyone making the claim that Joseph was fabricating the plates would need to answer these questions in order to make a more compelling case.   Note that asking these questions doesn’t  counter their arguments; it gives the critic the opportunity to support their position.  Questions, in this manner, are not to be confused with arguments (we’ll deal with logic and arguments another day).  You can support your questions with other sources, but it’s important to recognize that this method of asking questions can be more impactful in the realms of apologetics and research than practically anything else.  If a faithful believer can learn to ask pertinent questions about LDS history and theology, it will make the conversation go much more smoothly.  However, in order to improve your questions, it’s important to understand how to look at things from different perspectives, which is what we’ll discuss now. Looking at Problems from Different Perspectives A worldview is described as “a set of values and assumptions about the world, through which we interpret our experiences” (7).  In order to ask important, pertinent, and even faithful questions, it’s essential to understand what ideas your questions are based on.  A worldview is also described as “a collection of attitudes, values, stories and expectations about the world around us, which inform our every thought and action” (8).  In order to be an effective critical thinker, it’s important to be able to differentiate between, and look at, different perspectives or worldviews.  In truth, we do something similar all the time, almost daily, most of the time without us ever realizing it just by going about our day.  A faithful church-going man who wakes up and goes to work may be looking at things from a variety of perspectives:  his perspective as a father, his role as a husband, his role as an employee, his role as a child of God, etc.  All of these perspectives have different ways of manifesting themselves and have different questions and goals.  Similar analyses may be applied to how we critically think about certain topics.  Consider the following: “Furthermore, since belief and belonging are intricately interconnected, these changes in identity will often be accompanied by cognitive forms of restructuring, which allow the coexistence of faith and of secular knowledge of religion. One such form may focus on the recognition of two distinct layers of explanations of reality: a faith-based one, with supernatural foundations, and a secular one, with a focus on human dynamics within the phenomenon of religion.” (9) I appreciate this analysis because while it’s careful to maintain that the secular and spiritual are connected, it is keen on pointing out that there are two different viewpoints to look at events that both answer different questions and have different presuppositions.  We’ll go over a couple of these viewpoints now. The restored gospel perspective is one that we Latter-day Saints are most experienced in.  This viewpoint is primarily focused on things like our relationship with our Heavenly Father, the morality of our choices, and how Jesus Christ established, re-established, and guides his church today.  It looks at this world as being a step along an eternal path, one with divine potential, where God’s purpose is to bring about “the immortality and eternal life of man” (10).  This perspective assumes that those who deal with it believe in God, believe Jesus Christ is the Savior of mankind, believe that God has called prophets (like Joseph Smith) to teach us, and that those who make and keep covenants will return to the presence of God.  (This is not a comprehensive view of this perspective, but it will suffice.) As you can imagine though, other perspectives can be useful.  Consider the Historical perspective, which is primarily focused on gathering data from various sources in order to synthesize an understanding of what occurred in the past (11).  This perspective is focused on trying to figure out what occurred by studying what people before them wrote and thought about events.  They are primarily concerned with finding out what people make what claims and interweaving each of the accounts into one coherent, plausible, and accurate narrative of events.  This perspective presupposes that the events are able to be known by the people who record them, and they know there are gaps in the data that are irrecoverable as it stands right now.  Even so, they are able to study documents as a means to the end of learning about events in the past with varying degrees of certainty. Another perspective that Latter-day Saints encounter is the scientific worldview.  Tracing its roots back to the Renaissance (and Greek Philosophy), it seeks to establish causality for everything that occurs in the world.  Much can be said about the history and assumptions of empirical science, but suffice it to say that it is assumed that knowledge can be obtained through direct observation of the material world (12).  In this perspective, scientists are concerned about how different things interact with each other, what causes different reactions, and what variables can be manipulated to bring about what result.  Assumptions made by scientists vary, but it wouldn’t be untrue to state that they assume that everything is a long string of “cause-effect” reactions.  This perspective, when taken to its extreme, may result in the acceptance of determinism (13). The perspective of this very article and series is worth mentioning…I wrote this under the belief/assumption that God exists and that concepts such as morality and libertarian free will (14) are true.  With those presuppositions in mind, I hope that I’ve been able to show that each of these perspectives is based at least somewhat in reality and may be useful in determining the truth, that is “knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;”.  Practicing looking at things from different perspectives may be challenging, and it may push you out of your comfort zone, but it is infinitely worth it (15).  However, every one of these perspectives can be warped, leading to conclusions that are unhealthy, harmful, and not conducive to the moral life we try to build.  This doesn’t mean that there is something wrong with the worldview itself, any more than it would mean that a hammer has something wrong with it because it can’t mow the lawn.  The purpose, assumptions, and answers each worldview provides are different, and I posit that each one should be used to answer questions in its respective domain. Now, how does this relate to critical thinking?  I mention this because a critical thinker is able to take information from multiple perspectives to find ways to solve problems and make decisions with data from a variety of worldviews.  Ignoring one or more perspectives in favor of another is referred to as “bias”.  For example, when discussing controversial topics such as the relationship between members of the LGBTQ+ community and the church, it’s important to understand what perspectives are at play and to avoid bias in any format.  For example, LDS critical thinkers should be careful to not ignore what role genetics might play in homosexuality (16), and the critical thinking members of the LGBTQ+ community should be careful to remember the role that traditional families play in the afterlife (17).  Allowing one perspective to cloud another will lead to contention, frustration, and a lack of intellectual and spiritual engagement with all parties involved. To recap, a critical thinker needs to be aware of the inherent worldviews/perspectives of every source being analyzed.  While not separating the perspectives or allowing bias to cause them to distort or ignore other worldviews, critical thinkers are able to collect, synthesize, and evaluate data from different sources.  After all, we believe in anything that is “virtuous, lovely, of good report, or praiseworthy” (18).  Latter-day Saint critical thinkers will then be able to look at the problems and questions of others, and either ask questions about, or provide answers with, the differing worldviews/perspectives in question.  In this way, I believe that being able to differentiate between the worldviews (and assumptions) of different people, will prove to be yet another essential aspect of LDS apologetics and research. An Invitation to All That was kind of long, I hope you’re still with me.  In our discussion above, I’ve alluded already to the idea that I, the author, am carrying a few assumptions with me as I’m writing, namely I believe in God, agency, and moral law.  The critical thinker will rightly be able to point out that no one can prove empirically that these things are real with a scientific perspective…and they would be right.  There are limits to every worldview, but the careful reader will be able to realize that these very limitations are exactly why I’m writing this article in the first place.  We can’t just use “one worldview” as the be-all-end-all standard by which we are to view the universe, any more than we can expect a plumber to be able to perform heart surgery.  We need to be willing to look beyond mere bias, and thus, I have an invitation to every critical thinker out there, both church members and non-members alike. For members, I invite you to study LDS church history and theology, employing critical thinking skills as you research.  I invite you to listen to the spirit, and accept truth from all sources.  I invite you to redouble your efforts to “Come unto Christ, and be perfected in him” (19).  Do things to increase your faith as you increase your knowledge of other domains.  As you do so, I promise that both your spiritual and intellectual capacities will increase and that you will find greater happiness and confidence as a result.  In other words, continue your efforts to seek learning by study and by faith (20), and share the blessings of such efforts with everyone that you know. For those who are not members of the church, I assert that there is a spiritual domain and that it can be known through spiritual methods.  These methods include meditation, prayer, and the study and application of the words of the prophets.  Over time, upon acting on these spiritual exercises, I claim that you will begin to feel a rejuvenated sense of power and confidence and that you will feel the inert “good” that comes from each of these (21).  I testify that this spiritual perspective will not contradict truth, but will help you embrace it wholeheartedly.  I invite you, in this sense, to seek God, and to believe in his Son, Jesus Christ.  I invite you to study the words of the prophets, both ancient and modern, and look for the spirit to testify to you of this higher plane.  I invite you to Come and See, Come and Help, Come and Stay (22), and most importantly, I invite you to follow Jesus Christ’s admonition to follow him (23). Hopefully, you’ll take the skills I’ve presented here about asking questions and examining things from different lenses to heart as you do this.  I also hope that you don’t dismiss this invitation off-hand.  I promise you that as you look over the collective history of God allegedly working with people, you will see His hand, and you will feel Him calling you.  I further promise that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can help you find a relationship with God that you cannot find anywhere else.  If you have questions throughout your spiritual endeavors, please contact us!  We’d love to help however we can. Conclusion In conclusion, much more can be said about critical thinking, and those working on this series will spend most of their time finding ways to foster critical thinking, and demonstrating that these skills inevitably leave room for faith.  The irony of writing a series on critical thinking is apparent though, seeing as I would hope that you would thoughtfully examine, and even challenge the ideas presented here when appropriate.  Even so, I hope that I’ve been able to show the utility of asking good questions, understanding differing worldviews and perspectives, and inspire everyone to more deeply study LDS theology as a means to the end of building faith in Jesus Christ.  While I make no claims of omniscience, I do think that these skills will bless lives in both spiritual and secular domains.  I look forward to helping pave the road to a far better future as a result. References: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-intuitive-parent/201703/the-emerging-crisis-in-critical-thinking https://youtu.be/Cum3k-Wglfw https://louisville.edu/ideastoaction/about/criticalthinking/what Kowalski K. (2007). The value of asking questions. Journal of continuing education in nursing, 38(5), 200. https://doi.org/10.3928/00220124-20070901-04 Anderson, Shayne. “Critical Thinking in Religious Education.” Religious Educator: Perspectives on the Restored Gospel 18, no. 3 (2017): 69-81. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/re/vol18/iss3/6 https://www.brown.edu/sheridan/teaching-learning-resources/teaching-resources/classroom-practices/learning-contexts/discussions/questions-critical-thinking https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHdIsT4eiEQ Gray A. J. (2011). Worldviews. International psychiatry : bulletin of the Board of International Affairs of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, 8(3), 58–60. Mauro Properzi; Belonging (and Believing) as LDS Scholars of Religion. Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 1 January 2009; 42 (3): 37–44. doi: https://doi.org/10.5406/dialjmormthou.42.3.0037 Moses 1:39 https://online.norwich.edu/academic-programs/resources/what-is-a-historian Hepburn, Brian and Hanne Andersen, “Scientific Method”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2021 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2021/entries/scientific-method/  https://www.google.com/search?q=determinism+definition&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS998US1000&oq=determinism&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0i433i512j0i512l8.2690j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8; see also Churchland P. Neuroscience: reflections on the neural basis of morality.  Edited by Walter Glannon. Defining Right and Wrong in Brain Science: Essential Readings in Neuroethics. New York: Dana Press; 2007 https://www.dialoguejournal.com/articles/mormonism-and-determinism/ Meredith, Adrianna (2020) “Plea to Professors: A Passionate Approach to Controversy in the Classroom,” Intuition: The BYU Undergraduate Journal of Psychology: Vol. 15 : Iss. 2 , Article 11. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/intuition/vol15/iss2/11 Mukherjee, S. (2017). The gene. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/the-family-a-proclamation-to-the-world/the-family-a-proclamation-to-the-world?lang=eng Articles of Faith 1:13 Moroni 10:32 (see also vs 33) D&C 88:118 Alma 32 https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2020/04/54uchtdorf?lang=eng Matthew 4:19 Further Study: “Real Vs. Rumor” by Keith Erekson from the 2021 FAIR Conference  “Worldview Apologetics: Revealing the Waters in Which We Swim” by Jeffrey Thayne Socratic Questioning Series [Disk 1] [Part 1] (Specifically the first video, the other videos cover different portions that will be called on later in this series) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042814022034  https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=AONE&u=googlescholar&id=GALE|A121765630&v=2.1&it=r&sid=AONE&asid=358e44db (has great list of questions you can ask when evaluating sources) https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/prophets-and-apostles/unto-all-the-world/as-he-thinketh-in-his-heart-?lang=eng (In this talk, Elder Oaks discusses how the presuppositions that LDS have lead them to different conclusions about different topics)   Zachary Wright was born in American Fork, UT.  He served his mission speaking Spanish in North Carolina and the Dominican Republic.  He currently attends BYU studying psychology, but loves writing, and studying LDS theology and history.  His biggest desire is to help other people bring them closer to each other, and ultimately bring people closer to God. The post By Study and Faith – Episode 1: What is Critical Thinking? appeared first on FAIR.