Church History

In response to the talk at a Fair Mormon conference by Davis Bitton

"I Don't Have a Testimony of the History of the Church"

by: Stuart Jensen

I have heard this argument several times now. We should not base our faith in the Church on the early historical events that framed the Church.  Instead, we should assess the validity of the religion (teachings, scriptures, what kind of a person it helps me become, ...) and decide if it is "true."

I have no problem with that process until you come to the "one true Church" and the "only Church with the priesthood of God" claims.

If those claims did not exist, I would have no problem living in my faith and "using" the Church as a tool to better myself, my family, and my neighbors.  But, these claims come with a whole set of "hooks" that make a semi-faithful journey in Mormonism quite uncomfortable.  Temple recommend questions, unquestioned authority of leaders, tithing, toe the line...

I keep coming back to the fundamentals.  There are, and have been, fraudulent people who have used religion to control people.  We know that is true. We see it time and time again, Jim Jones, David Koresh, Warren Jeffs, Marshall Applewhite (Heaven's Gate), to name a few contemporary examples. All of these people had loyal followers who were willing to die for their religion. 

My "task" when it comes to accepting a religion is to somehow detect these frauds. To do this, I have two tools: emotion and logic.

Most religions claim that emotion is a valid indicator of truth. If a religion "works" for a person, they will probably have good emotions about it and they could interpret that as a confirmation of truth. However, emotion is easily manipulated by outside parties and many people have fallen victim to becoming very "emotional" about very "bad" belief systems.

Very few religions claim that logic is an all encompassing (fail-safe) indicator of truth. In the Mormon culture, it seems to flip flop around depending on the audience and speaker.  I have heard several talks by Elder Oaks where he talks about the logical aspects of the gospel.  However, generally, the "Spirit" is promoted as the main divining rod in Mormonism.

I am struggling to use these two tools effectively.

I have tried the "spirit" approach for 40 some odd years and I have made no headway. I am still sitting right where I started. From a logical perspective, I question my ability (as well as anyone's ability) to take the fine measurements required to distinguish between "nice,"  "better," "best," and "the winner" truths. I cannot distinguish a "gradient" of emotions.

That only leaves a logical academic approach.  When you say that "religion is different" and we cannot apply the same historical evaluations to religion that we might to other histories, I get really worried. It seems to me that this is exactly what we should be doing.

One of the speakers talked about his experience coming to terms with the Masonic aspects of the temple ceremonies. I believe the term "horizontal revelation" was coined to describe Joseph using cultural objects to further his teachings. Critics of horizontal revelation would argue that such patterns of behavior are exactly what charlatans do. Especially highly charismatic leaders with holds over followers that are tight enough to overcome any internal questions that such behavior might provoke.

So, what is one to do?  The "spirit" does not work for me.  You are claiming that I cannot objectively examine history because that is not a viable alternative unless I am willing to allow the "divine" into the equation and turn it into a "sacred narrative."

A religion must earn my trust such that I am willing to allow the divine. I do not start out my search allowing the divine.  That path is dangerous and, in my opinion, has led too many people to destruction.  Therefore, it seems to me, an honest search for "the one true church" and "the only priesthood of God" must start with a critical logical examination of its origins. Once that passes muster, then the sacred narrative can be accepted, not the other way around.

Now, again, if I was just looking for a "nice" church to raise my family in, I think emotion would be an adequate tool to use. But Mormonism raises the bar on itself as to require much higher levels of scrutiny.