Spending any time at all on social media can rapidly distort your sense of reality when it comes to what most Mormons believe. We often forget that more than half of Mormons live outside of the United States and that almost none of these people care about the petty concerns of the various factions out there. In my relatively conservative ward in rural northern Colorado, most people don’t follow any of the blog-based battles. Most people are simply too busy getting kids to and from school and various events, as well as doing their callings and trying to find time to go to the temple, to worry about the latest outrage fest.

But every once in a while I follow some on-line conversation down the rabbit hole and end up shaking my head at the angst among various factions. And apparently — unbeknownst to me — there are a LOT of liberal Mormons who hate Mormon apologists. And I am not talking about slight disagreements — I am talking about real hatred (at least in their on-line expressions).

I am not going to defend everything ever Mormon has ever done in the apologetics world. I am sure there are mistakes and exaggerations out there.

But I will defend my vision of the importance of apologetics, and it is really quite simple: Satan is happy to use deception to convince people not to be religious and not to believe in the Church. Good apologists simply point out the deception and provide another way of looking at things that supports a faithful point of view.

So imagine you were on the Sanhedrin when Christ was brought up for trial (see Matthew 26:57-67). The accusers were looking for false witnesses. I see apologists as the people willing to stand up and point out the deceptions going on. I see the apologists as those willing to point out all of the good things Jesus did. I see the apologists as those willing to protest a nighttime, unjust trial. I see the apologists adding their testimonies that Jesus is the Christ. What could possibly be wrong with opposing injustice, false reports and outright lies?

Continue reading →

This past weekend I was at Nauvoo for the Untold Stories Symposium. My topic was Catherine Laur Fuller Warren and her testimony against Dr. John C. Bennett. The audio below was recorded live, with minor edits to make it shorter (30 minutes vs. longer) and less blooper-filled. The powerpoint file for the presentation is also attached.

The Widow’s Testimony – powerpoint file

This, I felt, was the core of the new paradigm I have explored in my Faithful Joseph series. This is the previously untold history that is key to understanding everything else that happened in Nauvoo.

The trip to Nauvoo provided some interesting insights: Continue reading →

Elder David A. Bednar in the LDS Face2Face event for youth was asked a question by an eighth grader named David regarding how to stay strong in the face of constant opposition and skepticism from his peers at school. In response, Elder Bednar turned to the scriptures and pointed David to the story of Sadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego. He promised that as David (and we) study this story, we would learn how to overcome opposition and stay unspotted from the world.

In particular, Elder Bednar pointed out one detail of the story that he thought was highly significant. When these brave young men emerged from the furnace, not was “an hair of their head” not “singed” but significantly “the smell of fire had” not “passed on them.” Elder Bednar noted that anyone who had ever been at a campfire would know that it was exceedingly difficult to keep the smell of fire off of us. And yet, these young men had been thrown into the midst of an exceedingly strong fire and yet emerged unscathed.

Elder Bednar suggested that we should ask ourselves how they were able to emerge from the midst of the fire without the smell of the smoke. I don’t know that I have a definitive answer to that question, but I did have a couple of thoughts.

First, the three were among those who consecrated themselves by avoiding the meat and wine of the king. Thus, they had kept the commandments of God and kept themselves pure from taint. Second, they were therefore given great spiritual knowledge, skill, and wisdom by God (Daniel 1: 17). Third, the three were unapologetic when asked by Nebuchadnezzar whether it was true that they refused to bow down to him. Fourth, they had sufficient faith both to be rescued and not to be rescued (“but if not”). It is significant to me that they did not demand rescue from God, but were willing to accept whatever he had in store. They placed their will in line with his. In Nebuchadnezzar’s words, they “yielded their bodies” in the service of God.
Continue reading →

Some readers may have heard that Jeremy Runnells has announced via a press release that he is facing a disciplinary council.

There are a few points I would like to make:

1)We would not know about this situation if he had not announced it in a press release. Church discipline is private.

2)When the council takes place, we will only hear one side of the story, i.e., Bro. Runnells’.

3)People who are truly interested in repentance usually do not make their disciplinary councils public through press releases. I have known people who faced a disciplinary council with an attitude of understanding and willingness to make changes. They have faced a loving, charitable process that has resulted in true positive progression in their lives. Bro. Runnells’ public statements show he is not interested in counsel from Church leaders.

4)Bro. Runnells’ claims in “Letter to a CES Director” have been thoroughly debunked point by point by FAIR Mormon.

5)Bro. Runnells’ claims had already been debunked by many sources when he wrote them, but he chose to ignore the existing scholarship.

If you have any friends who have been affected by Runnells’ letter, please ask them to read this:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Criticism_of_Mormonism/Online_documents/Letter_to_a_CES_Director

If you are a Bernie Sanders supporter, I’ve got some bad news for you: nothing significant will change if your guy gets elected.

Here is the simple reality of the American political system: it was designed to prevent significant change. We have three branches of government intended to check and balance each other. We have states intended to check and balance the federal government.

There are only three real areas where presidents can effect significant change: 1)foreign policy 2)judicial appointees and 3)the bully pulpit. Bernie is only likely to bring change in the latter two areas. So, if you are content to have a lot more left-wing judges and a lot more talk about inequality and social justice — but not much actual action — then by all means “Feel the Bern.” But don’t come complaining to me three years from now when nothing else has changed. I will just remind you of this post, and I will point out that Hillary Clinton probably would have given you the same judges.

If you want to claim that the Obama presidency brought change, I would point to two “accomplishments” of note: the disastrous Obamacare bill and the worthless Dodd-Frank bill. Yes, these were two significant pieces of legislation, but remember they took place when Obama had a Democratic House AND a filibuster-proof Senate. There are no scenarios where Bernie enjoys a Dem House and Senate.

So, let’s say Bernie wins in 2016. He will face a Republican House galvanized more than ever to stop his brand of Socialism. The Senate will probably be won by the Democrats, but probably with 51 to 53 Democrats at most. And then come the 2018 elections, which are likely to resemble, more than anything else, the shellacking that Obama suffered in 2010. This is simply a reality that nearly all presidents in recent U.S. history have faced: off-year elections are usually punishing for presidents, and this happened to Obama in 2010 and 2014, and it will almost certainly happen to Bernie.

Meanwhile, Republicans have made huge gains on the local level. I urge you to read this article if you still think the Obama presidency was all awesome and stuff for Democrats.

The shift in party affiliation over the past seven years is absolutely incredible. In 2008, there were 35(!) states that were either solidly or leaning Democratic, five solid or leaning Republican and 10 judged as competitive. The following year there were 33 Democratic states, 12 competitive states and, still, five Republican ones.

From 2008 to 2015, Democrats went from a 30-state lead to a six-state deficit when it comes to states solidly or leaning their way on party affiliation. That is simply stunning.

Gallup’s findings are in keeping with what I think is the most under-told story of the Obama years: Republicans have made massive gains at virtually every level of government other than, of course, the White House.

Republicans have their largest House majority since World War II, having retaken the majority in the 2010 election. They hold a four-seat majority in the Senate, having seized control of the world’s greatest deliberative body in the 2014 midterms.

At the state level, Republicans have 31 governorships — almost two-thirds of all the governor’s mansions in the country. Republicans are even more dominant at the state legislative level; the GOP holds total control over 30 of the 50 states’ legislatures and has partial control in another eight states — meaning that more than three-quarters of the country’s state legislatures are controlled by the GOP.

Continue reading →