Episode 115: Apologetics and Apostasy in the Church

Over the years I’ve developed the view that a very large part of any apologetic project, including Mormon apologetics, is devoted to using a lot of words to point out that it’s at least possible that, despite some historical or other problem, the Church’s leader’s claims about the Church could be true.

Don’t get me wrong. There’s a lot of useful and informative apologetic work. People make arguments against Church claims on the basis of evidence that’s mistaken or misconstrued, and a lot of apologetic work is devoted to correcting those sorts of mistakes. But, there’s also this further line of apologetic thought which simply amounts to pointing out that such and such is still possible, despite all these putative difficulties. True, it’s possible that all of the Church’s claims about its origins are true. But, really, that’s just obvious. It should be obvious, anyway.

The interesting question is, when surveyed as a whole, does the best history on the Church tip the balance in favor of belief in the contemporary Church’s claims, does the history tip the balance in favor of disbelief, or is the evidence so perfectly balanced that one is unjustified leaning one way or another?

This matter of always pointing out that some such claim or some such event is possible is really a distraction from the other question. As a whole, what does the best evidence suggest?

I believe the best evidence is not suggestive of divine origins, and, to the contrary, is suggestive of rather more ordinary origins. That isn’t to say that everybody ought to just give up on Mormonism and that the apologetic project ought to be abandoned. Rather, I think what ought to be done is that apologetics ought to focus on a different matter entirely – i.e. the justification of belief on the basis of spiritual experience.

To my mind, that’s the real issue. If I trusted in spiritual experience as a good grounds for forming the sorts of beliefs at issue here, then, despite all the history, I very probably would still believe the Church’s claims. Without sufficient trust in spiritual experience as a method of getting at truth I’m left to form my beliefs on the basis of the best evidence, which, as I said, is not suggestive of divine origins.

You notice this trend in very well educated apologists or Church historians. They know all the same stuff about Church history as the critic. What’s the difference? My suggestion is that the difference is that one sufficiently trusts spiritual experience as a method for getting truth and the other doesn’t (there are certainly exceptions to this).

So, while I think there is a place for the sort of apologetics that mostly goes on these days, I think that if defenders of the faith are really interesting in helping people stick around, they ought to focus their attention on the issue of religious epistemology. I think THAT is the real heart of the matter. Basically, I’m saying that the Church needs more philosopher apologists and less historical apologists.

I know lots of people claim that the history takes them out of the Church. But, I suspect what’s going on is a combination of historical troubles and a growing distrust in what one is justified in believing on the basis of spiritual experience. And, again, my claim is that if apologists sufficiently shored up the needed epistemology, then history be damned.

Wow, he has me at: “I really don’t like religion any more, after doing a lot of study.”

I look forward to listening to the rest of the lecture. John thank you for taking the time to travel to Southern Utah and recording the lecture. This is a wonderful service.

I was expecting a lively panel discussion about apologetics and apostasy in the church but I guess a talk by a professional ex-Mormon doing the lecture circuit is just as well I suppose.

John, since you were there could you clarify that clapping at the 1:17 mark. I couldn’t tell if that was audience applause or William Wilson patting himself on the back.

He raised some interesting arguments about the contradictions between statements made by LDS leaders and the claims that apologists are forced to make to defend traditional LDS doctrine and worldview. He really undermines his argument, though, by misrepresenting LDS doctrine about the role of prophets and prophetic infallibility.

He argues that beacuse all members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the 12 are sustained as “prophets, seers, and revelators,” the LDS church is bound by any statement made by any of them at any time as being official church doctrine, and that apologists are acting as apostates by coming up with justifications that contradict anything said by any member of the 1P or Q12 at any time on any subject. This is just ridiculous. I have to wonder if this guy has ever seriously studied LDS scripture or doctrine.

Here is a quote from cannonized Mormon scripture which completely contradicts him.:

D&C 28:2, 6-7:

“2 But, behold, verily, verily, I say unto thee, no one shall be appointed to receive commandments and revelations in this church excepting my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., for he receiveth them even as Moses.

“6 And thou shalt not command him who is at thy head, and at the head of the church;

“7 For I have given him the keys of the mysteries, and the revelations which are sealed, until I shall appoint unto them another in his stead.”

Clearly the president of the church, the person who is Joseph Smith’s successor (which is only one person at a time), is the only person authorized to receive commandments and revelations for the church from God.

Joseph Smith himself said that “a prophet is a prophet only when he was acting as such.” Harold B. Lee explained for a prophet to declare new doctrine “he will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church.” Joseph F. Smith taught that nothing said by any church leader needs to be taken as doctrine unless what he says can be backed up by the four standard works, and that nothing new can be added to the teachings of the standard works unless it is accepted by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the 12.

His definition of apostasy is just crazy. Statements made by 1P counselors and Q12 members are not binding church doctrine. They never have been. For at least the last 60 years, the official position of the church has been that statements made by the president of the church are not binding doctrine unless the 1P and Q12 agree. I know some LDS leaders (like BY) have claimed that everything they say is revelation, but it seems like the height of intellectual dishonesty to omit mention that even going back to Joseph Smith himself, other church leaders have taught that not everything said by even the president of the church was to be taken as revelation from God.

These concepts are not new or controversial. They are not difficult to find or learn about — all of the above quotes (except for the one I mentioned from Joseph F. Smith) are on the Wikipedia article “President of the Church.” How can William Wilson have spent this much time studying Mormonism and not learned them? Maybe he should spend some time reading Wikipedia before he gives his next talk.

I am by no means a TBM. I think that it is fair game to criticize the intellectual dishonesty, doublespeak, and (sometimes) outright falsehoods propounded by Mormon apologists. But let’s make sure to stay intellectually honest ourselves. Wilson’s simplistic and absolutist portrayal of the role played by leaders of the church is just flat out wrong. With all of his claims of the time he has spent studying the church, he should know better.

I was delighted to “see” old friend William Wilson from my bygone days at PostMormon.org again. He was always very kind to me, and very supportive, and his scholarship always razor sharp.

On the last point it appears that nothing has changed! Nicely done Grape Nephi.