Part One identified eleven core truths that permit members to identify the flaws in criticisms of the Lord’s work. This Part illustrates this point in two specific cases: one regarding a Church manual, and one regarding the naming of the Church.

This is Part Two of a much-shortened and revised version of an article published at studyandfaith.org, with the title: “Some Core Truths to Remember When You Encounter Criticisms of the Church: Letter to a Young Friend.” It is available here. Part One of this Meridian series can be found here.  

Recap of Part One

Part One identified eleven core truths to keep in mind when encountering criticisms of the Church. They are:

Three Central Truths about the Gospel

  1. We Do Not—and Cannot—Even Come Close to Knowing All that Heavenly Father Knows
  2. However, Although We Can Never Know Most Things, Through the Spirit We Can Know the Most Important Things
  3. The Most Important Things to Know are Also the Most Important Things to Teach

Three Central Truths about Academic Writing and Research

  1. Academic Research is Inherently Flawed When It Leaves Out the Most Important Things
  2. No Academic Writing Should be Taken at Face Value: Anyone Can Make Important Errors in Accuracy, Logic, or Context
  3. Historical Research is Massively More Difficult When Gospel Truths are Involved

Four Central Truths about How the Lord Leads His Church

  1. The Lord Directs His Work on Earth, but He Does So in Particular Ways
  2. The Lord Permits Some Errors, and Prevents Others, According to His Divine Priorities
  3. Official Teachings Come from the Scriptures and the Presiding Councils—Not from Individuals
  4. The Lord Rarely Explains Himself, Even to Prophets

A Central Truth about How the Lord Leads All the Saints

  1. The Lord Confirms to Members So That They Can Know for Themselves

These core truths are important to keep in mind, because criticisms of the Church all seem to overlook one or more of them. Most such criticisms seem to me to violate #1 and #2 right at the start: they assume that mortals know a lot about what God would and wouldn’t do, and they assume that we cannot know at least the most important things through the Spirit. They therefore believe that in order to reach a conclusion about spiritual things, we must rely on whatever intellectual evidence has been collected to date.

Both of these assumptions are mistakes, though: mortals don’t know much about what God would and wouldn’t do, and we aren’t reliant on current intellectual evidence in knowing the truth of the central doctrines of the Gospel: we know through the manifestations of the Spirit.

In addition to these two mistaken assumptions, however, criticisms will also violate one or more of the other core truths. Here are just two examples to illustrate what I mean.

Lorenzo Snow Regarding Tithing

One criticism of the Church (found in the CES Letter) is that it censors and whitewashes its history; and one purported example of this is found in an episode surrounding Lorenzo Snow. In the Church’s manual, Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Lorenzo Snow, a statement by President Snow is reported this way: “I pray that every man, woman and child . . . shall pay one-tenth of their income as tithing.”[1] The objection is that this leaves out an important part of what President Snow actually said: namely, that “I pray that every man, woman and child who has means shall pay one-tenth of their income as tithing.”[2] The claim, then, is that President Snow actually meant that everyone who can afford to pay tithing should pay it, while the manual dishonestly changes his meaning to indicate that everyone should pay tithing.

Problems with this Criticism

Unfortunately, this charge is a perfect illustration of core truth #5—i.e., that no academic writing should be taken at face value, because anyone can make important errors in accuracy, logic, or context. And that is exactly what happens in this criticism.

In the first place, this objection actually misinterprets President Snow’s use of the word ‘means.’ President Snow does not say that everyone should pay tithing who has the means to do so; he says that everyone should pay tithing who has means. He is equating “means” with “money” or “income,” not with “can afford to.” His message is simply that all those who have income (whether men, women, or children) should pay tithing on that income. Though seemingly apparent enough, this becomes even more obvious when we notice that he uses the word the same way in another statement in the same discourse: he remarks that the land of Zion should be bought and paid for “by the means furnished by the Latter-day Saints”[3]—again equating “means” with “money.” And President Snow’s counselor, Joseph F. Smith, used the word the same way in the same Conference. He said: “Our children, as soon as they become old enough to earn means, should be taught to pay their tithing.”[4]

All of this makes clear that when Lorenzo Snow says, “I pray that every man, woman and child who has means shall pay one-tenth of their income as tithing,” he is referring to all men, women, and children who have income—and that they are to pay one-tenth of that income as tithing.

But this is not all. In his statement that the land of Zion will be paid for “by the means furnished by the Latter-day Saints,” President Snow completes the sentence by adding, “whether rich or poor.”[5]

In more than one way, then, it is clear that President Snow is not applying one standard to the rich and another to the poor; his message truly is that everyone should pay tithing. His counselor, Joseph F. Smith, emphasized this point in the same Conference. He said: “It is not a law that is applicable to one and not to another. If the rich may not receive blessings because their names are not on the record [as tithe-payers], then neither shall the poor receive blessings in the house of God if their names are not recorded.”[6]

In every way, then, the record shows that Lorenzo Snow was teaching that all the Saints were to pay tithing on their income—and the failure to see this is actually something of an intellectual embarrassment. The failure flows simply from: (a) reading President Snow’s use of the word ‘means’ inaccurately; (b) overlooking the context provided by his using the same word elsewhere in his discourse—which would have helped read the word accurately in this sentence; (c) overlooking the context provided by his counselor’s use of the same term in the same way—which also would have helped read President Snow accurately; and (d) failing to read carefully enough to see that President Snow and his counselor both include the rich and the poor in the same category—not exempting the poor.

In short, this criticism exhibits the very kinds of errors that #5 cautions us about: namely, that anyone can make important mistakes in accuracy, logic, or context. In this case, the author makes mistakes in both accuracy and context.

Understanding Church Manuals

Now, my guess is that the Church committee[7] that created this manual of Lorenzo Snow’s teachings thought that use of the phrase “who has means” could easily be misunderstood—indeed, that it could be misunderstood in exactly the way it is misunderstood in this charge against the Church. One way to handle this is to do what the committee did: omit the phrase and insert an ellipsis, indicating that words have been excluded. This is not a bad way to go, given the manual’s purpose. After all, the manual is not a historical treatise per se; it is a handbook for the edification and instruction of today’s Saints. Since, despite the criticism’s claim, the ellipsis does not change the meaning of President Snow’s statement, and since it avoids creating possible confusion, its use is not improper.

Now, personally, I would have preferred that the whole statement be quoted, accompanied by a footnote explaining (perhaps in the way I have above) that the word ‘means’ in this sentence refers to “money” or “income”: i.e., that all those who have income (whether men, women, or children) should pay tithing on that income. That kind of treatment would be required in a study that was strictly academic in nature, and I would have preferred that approach even here. Nevertheless, (a) because the manual’s editing does not change the meaning of President Snow’s statement, (b) because it avoids creating possible confusion, and (c) because the manual is not presented as an academic historical study in the first place but as a manual for instruction, this editing is not remotely deserving of the criticism it receives. In fact, I believe it is not deserving of any criticism at all.[8]

Conclusion Regarding President Snow

Though false, this claim against the Church is useful because it shows just how wrong one’s conclusions can be when they are based on factual errors (such as misinterpreting the word ‘means’), and on overlooking relevant features of the record (such as how President Snow and President Smith both use ‘means’ in the same way, and how both explicitly include the poor in their application of the Lord’s law).

If readers are alert to matters like this, they will find—if they dive into them—that many criticisms are just like this: they are clear illustrations of #5, containing errors either in accuracy, logic, or context—or, perhaps, in all three.

Varying Names of the Church

The complaint (also appearing in the CES Letter) is made that after the Church was organized in 1830, it was called by various names until, in 1838, the name was revealed to be The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The questions are then asked: “Why would Christ instruct Joseph to name it one thing in 1830 and then change it in 1834 and then change it again in 1838?” And: “What does this say about a Church that claims to be restored and guided by modern revelation?”

Problems with this Criticism

There are multiple problems with this criticism, however. In the first place, it completely overlooks two of the concepts covered in #7: (a) that, for multiple reasons, the Lord reveals matters one-step-at-a-time, “line upon line;” and (b) that the Lord gives guidance and direction according to what is needed. Secondly, it also overlooks #8—namely, that the Lord permits some errors, and prevents others, according to His divine priorities at a given time. Because the Lord formally established His Church in 1830, but did not reveal its name until 1838 (the complaint wrongly assumes that the prior names were given by revelation), in a technical sense every reference to the name of the Church prior to 1838 was a “mistake;” it did not actually capture what the Lord had in mind and what He would eventually reveal.

What is significant to note, though, is that this did not seem to matter to the Lord. After all, He provided a massive amount of revelation between 1830 and 1838, so, if it had been important to Him, He could have revealed the name of the Church anytime He wanted to. But He didn’t. Apparently, technical accuracy on this point was just not a priority, and thus He willingly permitted efforts at identifying the Church that would later be supplanted by its revealed name.

What this would seem to tell us is that these “mistakes”—such as they were—were completely trivial from a divine perspective. After all, although the Church did not have a revealed name in April of 1830, what it did have was a prophet, the authority of the priesthood, and the reality of ongoing revelation. And soon would come the Book of Mormon as a witness to the world of Jesus Christ and of the restoration of His Church to the earth. In short, what the Church was missing was minuscule compared to what it had, and this rendered imperfect naming attempts thoroughly trivial in importance.

This is what we see in the Book of Mormon (considered under #8 in Part One). We know that it contains “the mistakes of men” (Title Page) and “imperfections” (Mormon 8:12), and also that if it had been important to Him, the Lord could have found a way to prevent these mortal mistakes. But He didn’t. He willingly permitted them. Apparently, He was satisfied with the reality that what is mortal in the book is trivial, and therefore completely dwarfed by what is divine in it. Just so with the Church and its name.

Conclusion Regarding Varying Names of the Church

As in the case of Lorenzo Snow, none of this is actually difficult to understand. When we notice certain core truths, it is obvious that there is nothing to the complaint regarding the Church’s name. It is useful to attend to this example, though, because doing so helps us see just how important these core truths are and just how far wrong one can go when they are overlooked.

Conclusion

These are only two examples, of course. Nevertheless, they provide a sample of how easy it is for critics to overlook important truths and thus to commit errors in their analyses. Indeed, the many learned responses to various criticisms of the Church—including the CES Letter—identify this reality many times over.

This is why, as I said in Part One, for those who have knowledge of the truth of the Restored Gospel, it is perfectly valid, and even natural, to simply ignore the Church’s critics. Compared to the brilliant light of the Gospel, all they offer is noise. Ignoring that noise, we can then attend to things that matter most.

Nevertheless, if members do want to engage criticisms of the Church—either in addressing their own questions or in trying to help others—they can do so with complete confidence. Eleven core truths—truths about: the Gospel; academic research; how the Lord leads His Church; and how He leads all the Saints—are, I believe, sufficient to expose the flaws that infest the various criticisms of the Lord’s work.

In the end, the mockers at the Cross provide the paradigmatic case of critics in any age. Discussed in Part One, these observers of the Lord’s suffering thought they were smart enough to know what God would and wouldn’t do . . . and they couldn’t have been more wrong. Moreover, not only was their attitude complete folly, but it led to an absurd consequence: ridiculing the Savior at the very time He was sacrificing His life to save them.

Pointing this out will not change anything, of course. Criticisms will continue, and, over time, even accelerate. Nevertheless, at the Lord’s Coming their demise will be swift indeed. No one will be chiding the Lord’s work on that day.

*****

Duane Boyce is co-author, with his daughter Kimberly White, of the recent book, The Last Safe Place: Seven Principles for Standing with the Prophets in Troubled Times

A composite image featuring Duane Boyce and Kimberly White, co-authors of The Last Safe Place: Seven Principles for Standing with the Prophets in Troubled Times, alongside the book cover. The background depicts serene natural surroundings, highlighting the book’s message of faith, guidance, and standing firm with prophetic teachings.

Click here to learn more

 

[1] Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Lorenzo Snow, “Tithing, a Law for Our Protection and Advancement”, 160, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-lorenzo-snow/chapter-12-tithing-a-law-for-our-protection-and-advancement?lang=eng.

[2] President Lorenzo Snow, General Conference, October 1899, 28, https://archive.org/details/conferencereport1899sa/page/28/mode/2up?view=theater. Emphasis added.

[3] Ibid., 23, https://archive.org/details/conferencereport1899sa/page/22/mode/2up?view=theater&q=rich+.

[4] President Joseph F. Smith, General Conference, October 1899, 44, https://archive.org/details/conferencereport1899sa/page/44/mode/2up?view=theater&q=tithing.

[5] President Lorenzo Snow, op. cit., 23, https://archive.org/details/conferencereport1899sa/page/22/mode/2up?view=theater&q=rich+.

[6]  President Joseph F. Smith, op. cit., https://archive.org/details/conferencereport1899sa/page/44/mode/2up?view=theater&q=tithing.

[7] The presiding Brethren do not write Church manuals themselves. Committees are formed of devoted and able members who are set apart and who perform the extensive leg work of creating Church materials. The committees are supervised by layers of General Authorities, including members of the Twelve, and work products are ultimately approved by them. Nevertheless, the actual legwork—with the thousands of details and decisions that are required to produce anything—is performed by these committees.

[8] Although I would have preferred a footnote of the nature I mentioned, this is hardly the kind of matter that would attract the attention of General Authorities, including members of the Twelve, in reviewing the manual. They will be prompted by the Spirit on issues that matter, but this kind of thing surely falls in the category of things that matter very little and that the Lord willingly permits (see #8 in Part One).