Orson Scott Card: Nothing to fear from the truth [Mormon - Open]

Mormon Times ^ | July 15, 2010 | Orson Scott Card

[Colofornian]

When I got home from my mission back in 1973, I discovered that my family had become close with the family of James B. Allen, who was then serving as assistant church historian. (I would bring the families even closer — in 1977 I married his oldest daughter.)

During the winter of 1974, with my future wife off on a BYU semester abroad in Paris, I occupied my time by working on writing a play about Joseph Smith in Liberty Jail. Sections 121 and 122 of the Doctrine and Covenants had become very important to me on my mission, and I wanted to know the whole story behind them.

So my future father-in-law took me up to the Church Historical Department and helped me find a lot of excellent information — including photocopies of letters written in the Prophet's own hand to his wife.

I also read books and monographs that Professor Allen steered me to, detailing key events during the Saints' time in Missouri. That was when I found out for the first time that the Saints, including many of their leaders, had not been exactly wise in their dealings with each other and with their non-Mormon neighbors.

No actions of the Saints justified the way they were treated by their enemies, but some of their words and actions, magnified and spread as rumors, made many of the non-Mormon settlers feel justified in fearing the Saints and wanting to drive them out.

It was a time of turmoil, with some of the most prominent church leaders turning against the Prophet and getting excommunicated in the process. Some of them signed affidavits that appeared to justify criminal charges against Joseph Smith.

These things certainly explained what the Lord was talking about when he said, "If thou art accused with all manner of false accusations …," and comforted the Prophet with the words, "Thy people shall never be turned against thee by the testimony of traitors" (D&C 122:6, 3).

I found out for the first time about the "Danite band," a group of Mormons who, outraged by the offenses against the Saints, undertook to defend the Saints by force of arms — including "retaliations" against non-Mormons who may or may not have had anything to do with persecutions of the church.

With all the lies and accusations being hurled during that time, I found it very difficult to know just how much, if anything, Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon, Lyman Wight and other Mormon leaders knew about the Danites.

I took these problems to Professor Allen. Instead of telling me what was false and what was factual — which, under the circumstances, was almost impossible to ascertain — he instead taught me a principle much deeper and truer, which I could apply to all of LDS history.

I don't remember now whether he actually said it, or whether I extrapolated it from his testimony and his calmness about the conflicting information from the Missouri era, but this is the principle I came away with:

Whatever happened or didn't happen, Joseph Smith was the Prophet of God, and the gospel is true.

Without realizing it, I had been letting my testimony slip into a dangerous condition of contingency. That is, I had been letting the accusations of traitors and anti-Mormons raise doubts in my own heart about whether the actions of church leaders had always been wise or good — and then I had been letting those doubts reach into the deeper place where my faith in the gospel resided.

So, with Professor Allen's example before me, I leaned back and took a deep breath and thought about things.

From years of study before and during my mission, as well as personal experiences, I knew that God lived and this church was the chief organ of his work in the world.

Just because I was now finding out details about church history that had not been taught to me in Sunday School or in some of the official histories did not mean that the things I had been taught were not true.

In short, why should I let my own previous ignorance make me doubt things about the gospel that I had ample reason to be certain of?

I learned to approach church history, right up to the present, with this attitude: This happened … and the church is true.

Mistakes, misjudgments, speculations about doctrine and some indefensible actions were done by members of the church. But the imperfections of those called to the service of the Lord never imply that God's hand is not in the church.

Instead, they affirm the true principle that the Lord does not turn his followers into sock puppets or ventriloquists' dummies. People are always free to make their choices — even bad ones — and to hold on to their misunderstandings.

Knowing ourselves, how can we be surprised to discover that Saints were also imperfect in the past?

Shortly after my research on Liberty Jail, I began to write the scripts for the Living Scriptures series of dramatized LDS Church history audiotapes. With the knowledge and support of all the leaders of the project, I set out to bring up all the little-known events in church history that anti-Mormons love to use to "disillusion" church members.

I used the principle that these things happened and the church is true. As a result, anyone who grew up listening to those tapes can hear the "shocking revelations" of anti-Mormons with complete equanimity. "Yes, I knew about that," these Saints can answer, "but here's why it has nothing to do with whether the church is true."

This was all brought to mind by a recently published novel about the Martin and Willie handcart companies, "In the Company of Angels," written by my friend David Farland.

Farland's research was impeccable. He read all the pertinent documents and eyewitness accounts, and then wrote a fictional account that never contradicts the known facts in any way. Furthermore, as a Latter-day Saint he never contradicted his own testimony, and he did his best to be faithful and fair to historical figures that he had come to love.

Unfortunately, Farland's excellent research brought him face to face with the fact that my own great-great grandfather, Apostle Franklin D. Richards, behaved rather badly.

So badly, in fact, that President Brigham Young himself accused Richards of being proud and not listening to the Spirit, while publicly saying that Levi Savage had been in the right to warn the Martin and Willie companies not to cross the plains so late in the season.

We descendants of Franklin D. Richards, who ended his life as president of the Quorum of the Twelve, are rightfully proud of his life's work. But there is no denying that on this occasion he behaved unwisely and, in the view of most of the witnesses, proudly, making false promises and coercive statements that clearly did not turn out to have come from the Lord.

However loyal Richards' descendants might wish to be, we cannot fault Farland for depicting him in his novel exactly the way his own contemporaries saw him!

I'm sad to say that there is a nasty and false whispering campaign going on right now against Farland's novel, claiming it is somehow evil or offensive or even anti-Mormon for him to be truthful about what the Saints at the time said happened!

It's as if showing any Saint having ordinary human weaknesses somehow violates a secret agreement that we will never admit that any of us were ever wrong.

But if you read the book for yourself, you will find it filled with love, faith and truth.

I live in a church that is and always has been made up of fallible human beings, most of whom do their best, most of the time, to serve God and their fellow men according to the teachings of Christ. Yet mistakes — sometimes terrible ones — have been made, and to try to conceal them, or punish someone for speaking of them openly, would make us deceivers, and we know that deception does not serve the Lord.

We can only love and honor our pioneer forebears by trying to know them as they were, and never by depicting them as plastic dashboard saints who could do no wrong. How can false images provide us with examples we can follow?

We, and all the Saints before us, have been imperfect … and the church is true.

[Colofornian]

From the column: ...No actions of the Saints justified the way they were treated by their enemies, but some of their words and actions, magnified and spread as rumors, made many of the non-Mormon settlers feel justified in fearing the Saints and wanting to drive them out. It was a time of turmoil, with some of the most prominent church leaders turning against the Prophet and getting excommunicated in the process. Some of them signed affidavits that appeared to justify criminal charges against Joseph Smith. I took these problems to Professor Allen. Instead of telling me what was false and what was factual — which, under the circumstances, was almost impossible to ascertain — he instead taught me a principle much deeper and truer, which I could apply to all of LDS history. I don't remember now whether he actually said it, or whether I extrapolated it from his testimony and his calmness about the conflicting information from the Missouri era, but this is the principle I came away with: Whatever happened or didn't happen, Joseph Smith was the Prophet of God, and the gospel is true.

Ah, the “bottom line” of Mormonism:
#1 Don’t confuse me with the historical facts and historical realities about Joseph Smith, character-wise, or anything else. Why? ‘Cause I’ve already made up my testimony feeling-mind about that.
* Joseph Smith was a convicted glass-looker who was arrested again for attempting to shut down free speech in his community. (Repeat after me: “Whatever happened...Joseph Smith was the Prophet of God…”)
* By even Lds apologists’ own admission, Joseph Smith slept with his semi-adopted 17 yo housekeeper as early as 1831…and by a dozen years later was adding on a wife per month…a dozen of them who were already (and still) married to other men! (Repeat after me: “Whatever happened...Joseph Smith was the Prophet of God…”)
* Smith “translated” an Egyptian funeral document as if it was the Book of Abraham and Book of Moses. (Repeat after me: “Whatever happened...Joseph Smith was the Prophet of God…”)
* Uh, could you please explain how Smith said in the Book of Mormon (Moroni 8:18) that “God…is unchangeable from all eternity to eternity” -- yet right before he died, Smith claimed “We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see”?? (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345) (Repeat after me: “Whatever happened...Joseph Smith was the Prophet of God…”)

#2 Tell us why again, Orson, that the “bottom-line” conclusion of Mormons or Mormon-wannabes is to focus on a mere imperfect man, Joseph Smith? Why is the burning-in-the-bosom testimony focusing on who the true “Prophet” of God is -- as if there's only one, anyway?
What? Do Jews focus on Isaiah to the steady “frontline” “bottom line” exclusion of the Messiah Isaiah proclaimed in Is. 53?
Is the original OT prophet of God consistently testified about to the exclusion of all other OT prophets?
Do Baptist Christians focus on John the Baptist to the “frontline” “bottom line” exclusion of Jesus Christ?

[svcw]

We can only love and honor our pioneer forebears by trying to know them as they were, and never by depicting them as plastic dashboard saints who could do no wrong.

eeewww, Ouch.

[Colofornian]

From the column: Just because I was now finding out details about church history that had not been taught to me in Sunday School or in some of the official histories did not mean that the things I had been taught were not true. In short, why should I let my own previous ignorance make me doubt things about the gospel that I had ample reason to be certain of? I learned to approach church history, right up to the present, with this attitude: This happened … and the church is true. Mistakes, misjudgments, speculations about doctrine and some indefensible actions were done by members of the church.

Well, if “the Mormon church is true,” then that would mean Lds Doctrines & Covenants 1:30 is also true (it proclaims that the Lds church is ”the only true and living church on the face of the earth”)…Hmm…what then does that make the Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox churches per Mormonism?

If “the Mormon church is true,” then that would mean what it labels about all Christians –that we’re “apostate” and “corrupt” and embrace 100% creeds deemed “abominable” to the Mormon god – that also then becomes the “true” assessment of Mormonism about worldwide Christianity.

If you accept the foundational premises of the Mormon church, beginning with its opening vision, then you must likewise also accept their evaluations of Christianity, Christians, Christian denominations, etc.

[T Minus Four]

bttt

[Colofornian]

From the article: We can only love and honor our pioneer forebears by trying to know them as they were, and never by depicting them as plastic dashboard saints who could do no wrong.

eeewww, Ouch.

Yes...and Card was "true" in acknowleding this about his own Mormon ancestors:

From the column: Unfortunately, Farland's excellent research brought him face to face with the fact that my own great-great grandfather, Apostle Franklin D. Richards, behaved rather badly. So badly, in fact, that President Brigham Young himself accused Richards of being proud and not listening to the Spirit, while publicly saying that Levi Savage had been in the right to warn the Martin and Willie companies not to cross the plains so late in the season....there is no denying that on this occasion he behaved unwisely and, in the view of most of the witnesses, proudly, making false promises and coercive statements that clearly did not turn out to have come from the Lord. However loyal Richards' descendants might wish to be, we cannot fault Farland for depicting him in his novel exactly the way his own contemporaries saw him!

Yet why does this specter of "plastic dashboard [Latter-day] saints" even exist? Because Lds, Inc. has ensured that their general conferences, their curricula, their priesthood manuals, their relief society manuals, their magazines (Ensign & Liahona), their online articles, and their books prop up such cardboard cutouts!

[Vendome]

Blah, Blah, Blah.

Rambling article that was probably written in the heat of emotion.

[svcw]

Very interesting take there C. I took it as another in a string of ridicules against Catholics. Mocking them yet again for their beliefs. When will Catholics understand the distain lds have for them (or anyone who believes in God Eternal?

[svcw]

So now that lds have the go ahead to tell the truth, do you think they actually will?

[Colofornian]

From the column: We, and all the Saints before us, have been imperfect … and the church is true.

Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. (Jesus, Matthew 5:48…note the “Be” – not “become”)
Even the Book of Mormon says: …I would that ye SHOULD BE perfect even as I, or your Father who is in heaven is perfect. (3 Nephi 12:48)

So, what does that mean? It means...
...as the apostle Paul said, all have sinned and fallen short of God’s glory (Romans 3:23);
...that none of us can claim future perfection as “enough” – that if you just give us enough time, we’ll arrive at perfection…

No, the apostle Paul made it quite clear that Jesus is our substitute righteousness (1 Cor. 1:30) – and that only faith in Christ’s life and death on our behalf “justifies” us in God’s eyes. We are saved by grace (God’s free gift) through faith in Christ. Matthew 5:48 and 3 Nephi 12:48 show that God’s perfect standard hasn’t been altered even by man's sin. God doesn't "lower" the grade curve as man spirals downward. The perfect standard holds. No matter what. And like James said, if you break one part of the law, you're guilty of breaking ALL of it. (James 2:10) Those who try to impress God with comparative righteousness are in for a shock. Yes, we'll be judged for our works and our words -- but if we try to "skate" by our original sin and our individual personal sins without faith that Christ's blood was shed for all of them -- and that He took our punishment we deserved -- then we will be as "naked" before God...clothed in filthy rags we try to deem as "presentable" to an all-holy God.

He who dons a robe with any other "cleanser" than Jesus' blood are not truly "washed": And he said, "These are they who have come out of the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb." (Revelation 7:15)

[whattajoke]

Imagine if Joseph Smith pulled his stunts today? He’d be treated like the small-change criminal and full-on crackpot he was, with 24 hour media coverage for 3 days and then he’d disappear into the ether.

No amount of magic underwear would be able to protect him from the barrage.

[Utah Binger]

True, the corporation was indeed formed on April 6, 1830.
True, the founders were just men.
True, some of the men were scoundrels.
True, JS translated the Kinderhook plates. LOL
True, JS translated the Book of Abraham. LOL
True, JS liked the little girls.

I know these things to be true. In fact my humble testimony tells me these things are true. True can work in many interesting ways.

[TexasRepublic]

“Nothing to fear from the truth”? Yeah, right. The truth has been swept under the carpet. Ever hear of Solomon Spaulding? Most people have not. He wrote a fiction novel about American Indian tribes that later became the basis for the Book of Mormon. A manuscript [there were actually two - the stolen manuscript was a revised copy] was stolen from a publishing house by Sidney Rigdon (a Mormon founder) and was embellished to become the BOM, either by himself or Joseph Smith, or both of them working together. I visited the big LDS museum in Salt Lake City and scanned all the exhibits about the founders. Rigdon was notably absent. I inquired at the information desk. Only one person had even heard of him and downplayed his role.

[Grunthor]

I like Orson Scott Card. I like many of his political views and I have read and enjoyed many of his SF novels.

[Godzilla]

Rigdon was notably absent.

Interesting observation. Many attribute (including the three witnesses )the development of the temple worship and priesthood to his influence on smith.

[CommerceComet]

I used the principle that these things happened and the church is true. As a result, anyone who grew up listening to those tapes can hear the "shocking revelations" of anti-Mormons with complete equanimity. "Yes, I knew about that," these Saints can answer, "but here's why it has nothing to do with whether the church is true."

This is supposed to be a scholar? He has just said that his mind is made up and no evidence will change it. That is the statement of a propagandist, not a scholar.

The scandalous history of Joseph Smith prior to his supposed vision wouldn't bother me provided he wasn't a scoundrel afterwards. God can change any person's heart. Unfortunately, any objective study of Joseph Smith's life would result in an honest researcher concluding he was a con man his whole life. Unfortunately for Mormonism, Brigham Young was just as bad. As bad as their lives were, they leave a worse legacy of stealing souls.

[CommerceComet]

“Nothing to fear from the truth”? Yeah, right.

If the LDS "church" has nothing to fear, then open the President's vault and let legitimate non-LDS researchers see the early "church" historical documents. If the "church" has nothing to hide, why doesn't it act like it?

[T Minus Four]

Either I have heartburn or I am getting a testimony of your post :-)

[Utah Binger]

Either I have heartburn or I am getting a testimony of your post :-)

More of my testimony follows:

I know the Thunderbird Foundation is TRUE.

Pay your tithes and tax deductible offerings HERE

I know Maynard Dixon was truly a FINE ARTIST

[Vendome]

Yes, but, a different shade of gray.

[Elsie]

 

Whatever happened or didn't happen,

 Joseph Smith was the Prophet of God,

 and the gospel is true.