Sunday, 15 October 2006
Divine Sympathy for Skepticism
by Christian Y. Cardall
As a matter of ontological outlook, atheism seems to have been foreign to ancient cultures and mindsets preceding and surrounding the Greeks of a few hundred years B.C.; but skepticism with regard to individual claims of prophetic power and authority seems to be a more ancient, deeply rooted, widespread, and respectable tradition. In fact, while he would probably not go all the way with the Rolling Stones in having Sympathy for the Devil, the witness of the Old Testament seems to be that on at least one pivotal occasion Jehovah himself had sympathy for the skeptic—at least, the skeptic of individual claims.
After receiving his calling from the Lord, “Moses answered and said, But, behold, they will not believe me, nor hearken unto my voice: for they will say, The LORD hath not appeared unto thee.” In response the Lord gave him (or in the end, his spokesman Aaron) power to perform three miracles by which the children of Israel “may believe that the LORD God of their fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath appeared unto thee”: he would pick up a serpent by the tail, whereupon it would turn into a rod; he would alternately make his hand leprous and whole by putting his hand into his bosom; and water he drew from the river would turn to blood when he poured it on dry ground. The happy result of these demonstrations was that “the people believed: and when they heard that the LORD had visited the children of Israel, and that he had looked upon their affliction, then they bowed their heads and worshipped.”
I find it striking that this passage seems to take for granted the right of the Lord’s people not only to be led by a prophet to whom God has appeared, but to be openly told of these visitations, and to have the associated divine power and authority validated by physical demonstrations. That such events are not necessarily restricted to a single generation at the opening of a dispensation is suggested by a reminder a couple chapters later that God appeared unto Abraham, and unto Isaac, and unto Jacob.
Moses’ experience of speaking with God “face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend” is frequently cited in Mormonism, and the idea that a prophet—any prophet, including Gordon B. Hinckley, the current one—is someone to whom God visibly appears seems to be held by many Latter-day Saints, even if Joseph’s successors have not overtly affirmed this; but why is the expectation that the community will hear about such visitations not held or wondered about similarly widely? And when, how, and why did the expectation of public and physical demonstrations of divine power evolve from a prerequisite for belief the Lord understood and was willing to accomodate to the grievous sin of sign-seeking?
(3 votes, average: 3.33 out of 5)
Loading ...
Exploratory deployment of two Mormon imperatives—“prove all things; hold fast that which is good,” and “awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words”—from perspectives unfamiliar: secular, scientific, humanistic, and cultural (high and low).
I like the way you frame the question here–using an example from the scriptures for contrast.
In his book, The Lord’s Way, Elder Oaks discusses this issue a little bit. He admits that the Bible is somewhat contradictory or ambiguous about the use of signs. However he cites several passages in modern revelation specifically prohibiting the use of signs for conversion. He also cites passages from the New Testament where miracles generally occured among believers, but not as a tool for conversion.
One of his suggestions for the reason that signs are not for general consumption is that they serve as a weak foundation for testimony. Magicians and con-artists are extremely resourceful in what they do. I suppose that if the prophets got into the sign business, endless performances and tests would be required to satisfy skeptics.
I do wish Church leaders were a little more open about their communication with the divine. According to Elder Packer, they are prohibited from being more open. If such is the case then so be it–I can’t argue with that. On the other hand my skeptical side says that such silence could be a way of taking advantage of popular belief–giving tacit approval to something untrue. I don’t believe my skeptical side, but if I ever find out that it is right, well let’s just say I will be very disappointed. (This is not to say that I think every Apostle must see Jesus, or that the Church president has regular face-to-face communication with God.)
Jared, let me take the opportunity to give a shout out to your series on skepticism awhile back, including the sorts of skepticism that members of the Church exhibit every day (against others’ religious claims for example).
I suppose that the statement that signs and miracles “serve as a weak foundation for testimony” is meant to suggest that they don’t change peoples’ hearts, long-term behavior, and so on—that is, they don’t effect conversion in some deep sense. I agree, but would also point out that this nullifies another common but wrong apologetic answer for the lack of clear manifestations of divine power: that such would take away people’s agency to believe and behave.
I don’t think “endless performances and tests” would necessarily have to be a problem in practice. I’m puzzled that a more tangible basis is not provided for claims and commandments that only make sense in the context of a tangible eternity. It’s true that Mormonism offers more than most in this regard in recent times (historically speaking), with the three and eight witnesses to the plates. This shows recognition of the need for this sort of thing at some level—it’s just not public or lasting or frequent enough, not in our dispensation, or any other for that matter.
As for the leaders, I believe they are honest, sincere, and have the best of intentions, but I think I share your concern. The way I’ve described it is that sometimes, by what I’ve called “testimony by dropped hints,” they allow and perhaps even encourage popular belief in more than is really happening—and more than the leaders themselves believe is really necessary. From the totality of their statements it seems to me they believe a witness of the Holy Ghost on the part of the leaders is a sufficient basis for their apostolic witness.
Christian,
Thanks for the shout-out.
I don’t have any illusions that I have plumbed the heights and depths of what the Holy Ghost can do, so I am willing to grant them leeway on that point.
Some hints are more suggestive than others. Elder Packer’s inaugural conference talk as an Apostle is perhaps the most suggestive public talk we’ve had in recent decades. Elder McConkie’s final talk, coupled with some of his writing in The Promised Messiah, is also rather suggestive. I also had two separate religion teachers say that they were present when Elder Faust likened his witness to the brother of Jared. So there is reason to believe that there is substance behind the hints. Nevertheless, General Authorities (and members talking about them) have been known to embellish the facts on occasion, so I think some faithful-caution (if I can make up a term) is warranted.
As for the tangible basis of claims, I certainly don’t know the mind of God. Occasionally I am tempted to believe that he is actually trying NOT to convert people. Maybe such a concept isn’t as heretical as it looks at first blush.
JACK
Oops, Christian, sorry! I was reading the post, left the window open on my computer while I went to put the baby to sleep, and my three-year-old took the opportunity to practice typing his name! (He’s quite good, as you can see; he even knows how to use Caps Lock, since he harbors an inexplicable hostility toward lower-case letters.) I’m still not sure how he managed to post it.
Anyway, you may delete and clean up!
What delightful precocity! Rather than delete it, I’m inclined to leave this milestone of development (and monument to the exploratory and expressive nature of humanity) right where it is. Who knows, in the long run The Spinozist Mormon may be primarily remembered as host to the first blog comment ever by one of the Welch offspring, long after any of my content is forgotten…
Do you talk that way in real life? Because I have to really study to get an inkling what you are talking about and I wonder if people really talk that way.
Rosalynde, I often use the word, well, a bad word with the word “Jack” (he doesn’t know Jack ****, for example) and I thought, “oh, Rosalynde understands this and she doesn’t give it much credence.”
I will attempt to respond, however. I would love it if President Hinckley said, “God came to the temple yesterday and He told me you guys need to (oh, let’s say, give more money to PEF). . .” I’d sit right up.
We only know about one time, was it Wilford Woodruff or Lorenzo Snow?–since Joseph Smith, but I’m curious and I would want to know. I don’t know if it would make me more faithful, but I wonder if these guys (prophets) talk to God for reals.
for reals. That’s a comparable term for the words you guys use on this site, I suppose.
Jared, I once wrote a comment or two about Elder McConkie’s final testimony and his comments in Promised Messiah in which I gave a non-traditional interpretration. I’ll see if I can dig that up. I’ll also look for Elder Packer’s talk. Generally speaking however, because of the emphasis in recent decades on the Holy Ghost being a more powerful witness than visitations etc., together with the vagueness of the hints, I think most comparisons such as that apparently being reported about Elder Faust can be interpreted as a comparison of degree of (claimed) surety rather than assertion of physical similarity of the experience.
annegb, I probably don’t talk exactly the same as I write… IM me and find out!
Christian,
It’s in the June 1971 Ensign. It may have been his second Conference talk. I would link to it, but the preview didn’t seem to like it.
“That is a question that I have never asked of another. I have not asked that question of my brethren in the Quorum, thinking that it would be so sacred and so personal that one would have to have some special inspiration, indeed, some authorization, even to ask it.”
If this is in fact true, then why are there myriad examples of prophets discussing their experiences in the scriptures? Joseph Smith also didn’t seem to have any problem discussing many of the experiences he had. It seems that in Joseph’s view, as well as the view of those who wrote the scriptures was that heavenly witnesses are given so as to amplify the testimony of the prophet. Paul, Isaiah, Moses, Nephi, Alma, King Limoni’s father, on and on and on…
Just to add to the Faith Promoting Rumor side for Balance (or atleast the Rumor of Balance!)
1. Del Moody, Assistant to Mission President David B. Haight, reported in the MTC in summer 2000 that Elder Haight spoke of an open vision of Jesus Christ while serving as mission president.
2. David Haight, later in life, in general conference, spoke of a dream vision of the life of Christ he had while in the hospital.
3. James E. Faust in a CES fireside last year re-invoked the famous “Brother of Jared” statement.
4. Claire Middlemiss reports a dream vision of Christ had by David O. Mckay while on his world tour, which is oddly ignored by Prince and Wright’s DOM and the rise of Modern Mormonism.
I’ve got others, but these are the ones I can think of off the top of my head.
[…] In one of his responses to my previous post, Jared* is probably not alone in thinking that Elder Bruce R. McConkie’s final conference address and his discussion of seeing God in the last two chapters of his book The Promised Messiah suggest that he himself had been visited in person by the resurrected Jesus Christ. Elder McConkie clearly believed in the potential reality of that blessing, and the importance of seeking after it with all one’s heart; but he makes his case based on scriptures and teachings of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, and does not recount any such experiences of his own or anyone else of our generation. In fact, a careful reading of these sources may suggest that while he lived hoping to receive this blessing in mortality, he died without having attained it. […]
Re: The history of atheism, you might be interested in the book project of this guy
http://www.futureofthebook.org/mitchellstephens/
who sees it as extending further back.
Amazing post! I initially found your blog a week or so ago, and I want to subscribe to your RSS feed.