We need to abandon trigger point scholarship. Focusing on the flaws of the people who brought about the Restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the church they formed will not bring us to the truth.
By Tim Frodsham, 11 September 2020
So much information is in circulation today about the Restoration of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, information about the humanity and fallibility of the men and women key to the foundation of The Church as well as suspicious practices and doctrines. Many members are struggling with their testimony of the Restoration in light of this new and yet old information. New as it is rehashed again and again through Internet blogs and social media; old because these questions and doubts have been discussed for decades. A technique used by detractors of The Church is what I term trigger point scholarship. Study, distort and amplify the flaws of the leaders of The Church, past and present, with the implication that they have crossed some hypothetical line or trigger point, thus proving that they could not be called of God.
Understanding the many facets of the Restoration of The Church is an important part of our religious heritage. While considering the plethora of information available today about the imperfection of the individuals involved in the Restoration of His church and past and current church policy and practices, one should not deflect honest inquiry and scholarship. However, here are several points to consider when studying the origins of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, particularly when dealing with trigger point scholarship.
The Lord uses imperfect instruments to further his work
God uses imperfect instruments to move forward his work. Other than Jesus Christ, imperfect people are all he has. Joseph Smith prayed for forgiveness for his foolish errors and weaknesses of youth just before the appearance of the Angel Moroni. Joseph’s loss of the 116-page manuscript, the Kirtland safety society debacle. I could continue the list, but the goal here is not to detail the flawed humanity of those involved in the Restoration, past and present leaders of The Church, only to acknowledge that we are flawed.
Policies and practices of The Church change due to the fallibility of leaders and members of The Church, past and present, when attempting to deal with a growing, worldwide church.
Church leaders experiment with policies, just as in any other large organization. Remember the 18 month missions for male missionaries, the announcement that general authorities can speak at general conference in their own tongues? Again, the goal here is not to generate a list of policies that have changed over the decades, but to remind that these are men and women seeking out the best way to lead The Church and work at times by trial and error, just like the rest of us
For many controversial policies, we simply do not understand the mind of God and have to trust in His wisdom and judgement.
Let’s take a look at some of the controversies surrounding our latter-day prophets. I will not speculate on why The Church instituted a ban on blacks holding the priesthood. After all Joseph Smith himself, in the early years of The Church, ordained black members, nor do I want to speculate on the duration of the ban or the reasons for the bans final removal. The question here is if the controversy of blacks and the priesthood preclude The Church being true? Having lost investigators as a missionary in the early 1970s because of this practice, this policy was of great concern to me. After much prayer and study, I have found that the answers to the reason and duration of the ban are simply not available, and no matter what the reasons, this is not a pivotal point for my belief and membership in the restored Church of Jesus Christ. If the Lord revealed this policy, The Church is still true. If Brigham Young instituted this policy out of racism, however deplorable that may be, he still held the keys of restored Priesthood power and authority and was the Lord’s anointed.
Single men exempted from temple service is another policy I struggled with. Sealed to my wife for eternity, after her passing, I was in the only category of single men allowed to serve in the temple. I knew many single Latter-Day Saint men who were barred from serving in the temple, and I considered them far more worthy than me to serve in His house. I was uncomfortable requesting consideration as an ordinance worker because of my widower status. My solution was to volunteer as a temple engineer and wait patiently for the day when all of my brothers could serve in the temple, based only on their worthiness. Many of us have dealt with, and continue to deal with policy and practice of The Church that seem contrary to righteous principles.
Adherence to Church doctrines and practices is not necessarily clear-cut. For example, our dedication to and belief in the restored Gospel should not hinge on our personal interpretation of the Proclamation on the Family, and specifically, the controversy of women in the home versus the workplace. There is no right answer here. Each woman must balance education, potential employment with family responsibilities as outlined in the Proclamation. The Church has always recommended that women receive a good education and exercise their talents, and I am eternally grateful for the knowledge and skills of Dr. Mary C. who was an exceptional source of strength and trust for my wife during her last year, and who was also juggling her professional career with family obligations. Detractors of The Church question the veracity of the Restoration based on their own interpretation of the proclamation, setting their own standards by which that veracity should be judged.
Detractors of The Church work to amplify the flaws of the individuals involved in the Restoration
Defamation of the key players in the Restoration is something that those who study Church history should be wary of. For example, let’s examine the controversy surrounding B.H. Roberts, the most skilled, adroit, and encyclopedic church historian and intellectual of this dispensation. I have to confess my bias in this particular example. During my misspent boyhood, I read all six volumes of B.H. Roberts’s comprehensive history of The Church, twice; yes, I know, nerd alert and all that. Roberts was concerned about future attacks on the veracity of the Book of Mormon and outlined the various elements of the history, geography, language, flora, fauna, plagiarism, and other issues that detractors of The Church could use in future attempts to debunk the book.
Roberts’s critics make the claim that in performing this study he lost his testimony. Other than speculation, couched in an attitude of “We are the only one to know the facts” and smooth monologue interpreting short quotes taken out of context, there’s little evidence to support this. Brother Roberts did not write this manuscript to be published 1, but to inform the Quorum of the Twelve what they should consider and prepare for in future attacks on the Book of Mormon.
Rather than rehash the various arguments of the B. H. Roberts smear campaign, refer to the FairMormon article for a summary of the tactics used to defame him. As stated in the article, “B.H. Roberts was nothing if not brash, opinionated, combative, and even undiplomatic and untactful at times” 2. Maybe that’s why I really like the guy. These personality traits may provide numerous sound bites for his detractors, but in no way refute his title as “Defender of the Faith” and the father of modern scholarship in The Church. We should be skeptical of the defamation of the other key players in the Restoration as well.
History is viewed through interpretation. No one has all the facts and insight on historical events and the people involved.
When studying historical accounts as written by detractor of The Church, remember that histories and journals, even eyewitness accounts, are simply not enough to give us the full picture of what actually happened—never mind what was in the hearts and minds of those involved in the Restoration of The Church, and the practices that resulted. One of the most insidious tactics used by detractors of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is to claim in their exposition that they have the actual facts and that everybody else relies on supposition or hearsay. Alarm bell should be ringing in your head right there. Nobody has all the facts. Everybody is making suppositions based on scarce and sketchy information. Some of these suppositions are well thought out and researched; most are not. For all of the smooth, well-written, and well-presented arguments that Joseph Smith and subsequent church leaders could not be prophets of the Lord Jesus Christ, detractors do not know the mind and will of these individuals. When encountering anyone who pontificates as if they are in unique possession of “the facts,” turn off the audio, put down the book, close the blog, and find something that will be meaningful and helpful. No one has “the facts.”
Detractors of The Church would have us set a line or trigger point, which when crossed, proves that the Restoration was not divinely directed.
In addition to the well documented fallibility of church leaders, past and present, detractors of The Church either distort what little is known of what happened nearly 200 years ago, or make up facts to put the early founders and supporters of the Restoration of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in the worst light possible. With this newly discovered fallibility, detractors then claim that these individuals could not have been instruments in the hands of God. Because of their unrighteousness they have crossed a line and were unworthy to be instruments in the Restoration. Doctrines and practices are called into question and are shown as proof that The Church of Jesus Christ could not possibly be His restored church as these are things that Jesus would not do. One might call this a trigger point, a hypothetical line, that once crossed, shows that past and present leaders of The Church could not have been called of God, and policies, doctrines and practices of The Church could not be from God. Much of the scholarship of detractors of The Church is built on the premise that there is a line or ‘trigger point’ which when crossed, disproves the veracity of the Restoration and the authority of Christ’s restored church.
Who set the standards for such a line or trigger point? Is such a line or trigger point even appropriate?
Joseph F. Girzone, A retired Catholic Priest, espoused many reforms to the Catholic Church through his fictional writings. He recognized the sinful nature of his church leaders, yet believed firmly in the apostolic succession of the Catholic church:
“Would Paul have been loyal to Jesus if, because he disagreed with Peter on important matters, he went off and started his own religion, saying, ‘I alone am worthy to spread the gospel because Peter is a hypocrite?’ Or would Barnabas have been loyal to Jesus if he started his own religion because he couldn’t get along with Paul? Jesus never guaranteed personal sanctity to the leaders of his community, only that he would guarantee the faithful transmission of his gospel until the end of time.”
“When Christian people became disillusioned with The Church authorities because of their personal corruption, did they have the right to take that authority on themselves? Who gave them the authority to do that? No one has ever shown that The Church leaders officially taught anything contradictory to Jesus’ teachings, in spite of their scandalous personal lives. In fact they remained remarkably faithful to the teachings of Jesus.” 3
Though we as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints disagree with Girzone’s basic premise that apostolic authority has survived since the meridian of time, his thesis is correct when applied to apostolic authority in the last days. There is no trigger point of worthiness for the apostolic leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Whom the Lord Calls, He Qualifies. 4
It is important to recognize that the controversies surrounding those involved in the restoration of Gospel of Jesus Christ are not unfounded. Early Church leaders were fallible human beings and were struggling with the new precepts of the Restoration as well. At what point, as we learn of the frailties and humanity of the modern prophets of The Church and question their policies and practices, do we finally conclude that they have crossed some hypothetical line? At what point do we infer that they were not righteous enough to serve as the Lord’s anointed prophets of the Restoration? At what point do we consider that the policies they espouse are no longer in alignment with our vision of the Savior’s gospel and, therefore, that The Church cannot be the Savior’s restored church? Who has the authority to establish that “line”?
Honest scholarship is required, in conjunction with prayer, faith and trust
There is a difference between honest scholarship, removing the rose colored glasses and examining the history of The Church in an sensitive and objective manner, and amplifying the faults and flaws of The Church and its founders with a goal to discredit. There is no hypothetical line. Either The Church was divinely restored or it was not, and attempting to prove that by establishing an arbitrary trigger point and then distorting history in order to show that the line was crossed is not the way to answer this question.
When it comes to the doctrines, policies and practices of The Church, our goal should be to understand and differentiate between the aspects of The Church that are based on doctrine which will not change and practices of The Church based on policy which may change as The Church and its people mature. Our reconciliation process should not entail stacking perceived faults in church policy against some arbitrary trigger point to determine if we should still believe, but to seek reconciliation with the Savior by considering the issues we do not understand and then receiving and heeding the Lord’s promptings. Again, scholarship based on a ‘trigger point’ mentality is not sound methodology.
When attempting to resolve our honest and legitimate questions about Church practice and policy, much of the answer has to do with timing. Elder Oaks offers excellent insight into the timing of the Lord in a 2002 BYU Devotional. The subject of his speech was the Lord’s timing in our personal lives, but he also cited the timing of the gospel taken to the Jews versus the gospel taken to the Gentiles and all the world 5. Many of the practices and policies we question today will be resolved with time, and what is required is that we reconcile our heart and mind to His will.
In Lieu of a trigger point scholarship, Lawrence E. Corbridge highlights the four fundamental questions we should ask ourselves when addressing doubt:
1. Is there a God who is our Father?
2. Is Jesus Christ the Son of God, the Savior of the world?
3. Was Joseph Smith a prophet?
4. Is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints the kingdom of God on the earth?
“By contrast, the secondary questions are unending. They include questions about Church history, polygamy, people of African descent and the priesthood, women and the priesthood, how the Book of Mormon was translated, the Pearl of Great Price, DNA and the Book of Mormon, gay marriage, the different accounts of the First Vision, and on and on.” 6
The questions are meant to be complex and enigmatic and, in most cases, have no one-size-fits-all answer. That is God’s plan. If all the answers were presented on the proverbial silver platter, there would be no room for study, consternation, and uncertainty on our journey to develop trust and faith.
Attempting to satisfy all of the critics, masters of a trigger point scholarship, whether it be we who doubt or the doubt of others, is an impossible task. The question is not where to set a trigger point and whether or not church members and leaders have crossed it, but how to gain and keep a testimony of the divinity of Jesus Christ and His restored church in these latter days. A major facet of this mortal existence is the struggle to come to know God. For whatever reason, some come by this genuine faith easily as they receive personal assurance and testimony through the intervention of the Holy Spirit. Others of us struggle for that assurance, but struggle we must. To build a bedrock of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ—His gospel, His covenants, His restored church—is our first and foremost priority. Once we have established that bedrock, the multitude of questions and concerns will not evaporate. We may never find the answers, but we can find the faith to know that the answers are there. Trigger points vanish, and the myriad of these secondary questions becomes a matter of study, wondering, action, faith, trust, and patience. Don’t forget patience.
- “Studies of the Book of Mormon” B H Roberts, published in 1985 by the University of Utah Research Foundation
- “Evasive Ignorance: Anti-Mormon Claims that B.H. Roberts Lost His Testimony“ https://www.fairmormon.org/archive/publications/evasive-ignorance-anti-mormon-claims-that-b-h-roberts-lost-his-testimony
- “Joshua The Homecoming” Joseph F. Girzone, Image Books, Doubleday
- “Whom the Lord Calls, He Qualifies” https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2013/07/whom-the-lord-calls-he-qualifies?lang=eng
- “Timing” Dallin H Oaks, BYU Speeches, 2002
- “Stand Forever” Lawrence E. Corbridge, Jan 2019, https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/lawrence-e-corbridge/stand-for-ever/
Latter-Day Saints 