The mockers at the Cross just “knew” that if Jesus were really divine, He would come down and end His suffering. The truth, though, is that they actually had no idea what a Divine Being would do. In this way, at least, these ancient mockers provide a paradigmatic case of critics in any age (including the “CES Letter”). Fortunately, certain core truths permit members to identify the flaws in every objection they encounter.

This is 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.” CLICK HERE to see that source for much more detail on the topics presented here.

Nothing New

Perhaps the first thing to recognize about criticism of the Church—of which the “CES Letter” is just one example—is that such disparagement of God’s work is nothing new. It has actually attended His work from the very beginning: Lucifer objected to the Father’s Plan right at the start, in the pre-earth life (Moses 4:1–4); later, Cain had a rebellious and complaining spirit toward God’s actions (Moses 5:16–26); the children of Israel complained incessantly about Moses;[1] people complained about later prophets, as well—from Elijah, to Samuel the Lamanite, to John the Baptist;[2] and the scribes and Pharisees at the time of Christ devoted themselves to condemning the Savior and His actions.[3] So there is nothing new in the fact that criticisms abound in our day; they have always abounded.

Eleven Core Truths

There is another matter that is also useful to recognize. It is that there are certain core truths, that, taken together, seem to me to address every criticism we might encounter. There are eleven of these core truths, and they include: (a) three about the Gospel itself; (b) three about academic writing and research; (c) four about how the Lord leads His Church; and (d) a final core truth about how the Lord leads all His Saints. All of these are important, and I will present them all briefly as a general overview. A more complete treatment of each appears in the original article, mentioned above.

Three Central Truths about the Gospel

1. We Do Not—and Cannot—Even Come Close to Knowing All that Heavenly Father Knows

Many criticisms of the Church are based on the assumption that mortals know a lot, and thus that they are good judges of what God would and wouldn’t do, and even of what He should and shouldn’t do. But this assumption could not be more false. The mockers at the Cross, for example, just “knew” that if Jesus were really divine, He would come down and end His suffering. The truth, though, is that those who ridiculed the Savior actually had no idea what a Divine Being would do. They didn’t understand what motivates God, were ignorant about the plan of salvation and the Atonement, and were completely mistaken about the Savior’s reasons for being on the Cross in the first place. They thought they knew a lot, but they really didn’t know anything.

In contrast to the mockers at the Cross, it is far better to acknowledge, explicitly and right up front, that we do not come close to having God’s knowledge and perspective, and that, compared to Him, we know virtually nothing. Understanding this, when we encounter some element of God’s work that we can’t quite understand, we can at least be open to the possibility that the problem might not be with that element but with our understanding.

The mockers at the Cross didn’t have this attitude, but it would have helped them if they had. And the same is true of critics today. Believing, like these ancient mockers, that they are adept at knowing what God would and wouldn’t do, they see problems in various actions of the Church. A better approach, though, would be to wonder if the problem, rather than lying with the Church, doesn’t actually lie in their own understanding. Again, such an attitude would have helped the mockers at the Cross, and it would certainly help those inclined to criticize in our day.

2. However, Although We Can Never Know Most Things, Through the Spirit We Can Know the Most Important Things

Although in this life we can never even come close to knowing all that God knows, He is eager to testify to us of the most important things. These things we can know with absolute, perfect certainty through the Spirit. They include: There is a God, He truly is our Heavenly Father, and He has a divine Plan for us; we have a Savior, Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten of the Father, who performed the infinite Atonement for us; the Gospel of Jesus Christ was restored through Joseph Smith—the prophet chosen to hold the keys of this final dispensation; the Book of Mormon is the word of God; and, the Lord directs His Church today through living prophets, seers, and revelators.

Because these central truths (and others closely related to them) are the most significant and comprehensive matters pertaining to our lives, they are also the most important things to know. In fact, knowing only these things—and nothing else—is enough to tell us how to live and whom to follow. There will still be much we don’t know—ranging from why God does one thing or another, to the truth about various historical events—but we can be content that we do know what is most important to know.

This is crucial to appreciate, because one fallacy that critics of the Church often commit is tacitly assuming that unless members know everything about everything, they are following blindly. But this is false in two ways. First, as seen in #1, mortals can’t know everything about everything—only God can—so this is a completely false standard to begin with. Second, the assumption completely overlooks the role of the Spirit in testifying of the central truths of the Gospel—truths that, again, are completely sufficient to tell us how to live and whom to follow. Other matters can wait until the next life when we can more easily grasp the Lord’s divine perspective and when all the information about historical events is known. Until then, we can rely on what we do know, even in mortality­—matters that, again, are actually the most important things to know.

Members with a testimony and knowledge of this sort might not know much else, but they are not following because they are blind; they are following because of what, through the Spirit, they see.

3. The Most Important Things to Know are Also the Most Important Things to Teach

If some non-Christian friends asked us to tell them about Christ, we probably wouldn’t start by explaining that we don’t really know what year He was born, that the Gospels aren’t consistent in what they say about the resurrection, that He once assaulted people in the temple, that He destroyed multitudes in the flood, that He will destroy multitudes more at His Second Coming—and so forth.

We wouldn’t start with any of these, because all of them omit the most important things about the Savior: His divinity, His role in the Father’s Plan, His infinite Atonement, His perfect love and wisdom, etc. These are the most important things to know about Him, and, because of this, my guess is that we would all believe they are also the most important things to teach about Him.

This is useful to note, because many criticisms of the Church overlook this: they say that the Church “hides” things. But this is like saying that Christians generally are “hiding” the obscurity surrounding the date of Christ’s birth, the differences in accounts of the resurrection, and so forth. The reality, though, is not that they are being hidden; they are simply being treated commensurate with their importance: they amount to nothing when compared to what matters most about the Savior. Such matters will be learned in due time, but they are not the things that should be emphasized about the Lord or even taught first about Him. The most important things to teach are simply the things that are most important.

The same is true in teaching about the Restoration and the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith. The most important things to teach about these matters are the things that are most important about them. Critics fail to see this, and thus think in terms of “hiding”—when the reality is that the Church’s pattern is simply a matter of focus.

Three Central Truths about Academic Writing and Research

4. Academic Research is Inherently Flawed When It Leaves Out the Most Important Things

Think about a secular history of the Savior. No such history could ever tell the truth about Him, because, being secular, it would have to leave out precisely what is most important about Him: His divinity, His perfection, His role as Savior, etc. Such an account would treat certain events, such as His wielding a whip and driving people out of the temple, actually casting people out of heaven, destroying countless lives over earth’s history (including in the future), teaching about eternal punishment, and so forth—all of which, taken at face value, would seem extremely troubling.

This reality illustrates a key point: It is impossible to understand what Christ did without first understanding who He was—the divine Son of God and Savior of the world. Unfortunately, understanding who Christ was is exactly what a secular history cannot provide. Historians’ secularism, in other words, guarantees that they will not see what is most important to see about Him, and thus, to one degree or another, that they will also misunderstand everything else—like His driving people from the temple, casting people out of heaven, and so forth.

The same is true in our day. It is impossible to understand everything Joseph Smith did without first understanding who he was, and yet that is the very part of him that various critics’ secularism prevents them from seeing. Disbelieving who he was—leaving that part out—they have no chance of understanding what he did, and thus, try as they might, they can never really tell the truth about him.

5. No Academic Writing Should be Taken at Face Value: Anyone Can Make Important Errors in Accuracy, Logic, or Context

It is pretty tempting to think that anyone who has gone to the trouble of putting something in print (including online) must be scholarly—that they must know what they are talking about and that it must be accurate.

But this is far from the reality. Even the best scholars can be inaccurate, commit logical fallacies, and overlook important context—which is why scholarship never comes to an end. Just one example of this is seen in a famous book, by a well-known author, that explored the purported relationship between magic and the early Church in this dispensation.[4] Though widely embraced, this historical work has been roundly debunked.[5] Indeed, the reviewer reported that he once assigned undergraduate history students to read this book precisely because it provided a perfect example of how not to write history.[6]

In short, in all scholarly endeavors, there is always more to discover, correct, and improve—which means that, at any given time, there are always a lot of intellectual conclusions in circulation that are just waiting for the day when they will be discarded. The reality is that nothing in the scholarly realm can be taken for granted, especially when the topic is controversial. This is particularly important to understand in listening to critics: they may speak with confidence about their intellectual conclusions, but that confidence is a delusion.

6. Historical Research is Massively More Difficult When Gospel Truths are Involved

Despite His divinity and perfect life, early stories about the Savior cast Him as a flamboyant charlatan, a manipulator and a liar, and, for that matter, as one born of the lowest class of parentage.

That this could happen, even to Him, tells us something pretty significant: Writing history is difficult enough on its own, but it is massively more difficult when Gospel truths are involved. In such cases, not only are a person’s contemporaries likely to be suspicious, jealous, motivated by their own agendas, etc.—and thus prone to see everything in the worst possible light—but Satan’s entire project depends on distorting spiritual truth and damaging important figures’ reputations. These two realities make it pretty hard to get any spiritual account right—which is exactly what we see in the case of the Savior Himself.

Whenever we are reading history on a controversial spiritual topic, therefore—about Joseph Smith, for example—it pays to be extremely thorough in identifying sources and evaluating their reliability. It is certain that Satan has exercised every tactic and influence at his disposal to create false and damaging impressions of him, and we cannot afford to be naïve about that.

If false and salacious stories could be told about the Savior, who can’t they be told about?

Four Central Truths about How the Lord Leads His Church

7. The Lord Directs His Work on Earth, but He Does So in Particular Ways

Prophets consistently bear testimony of receiving frequent revelation. Reading their testimonies can open the way for the Spirit to bear witness to us that it is true.[7] However, the Lord follows certain principles in providing revelation to His leaders. Among them are the following.

  • He reveals truth “line upon line.” He does not reveal things in one fell swoop, but does so piece by piece.
  • He gives guidance and direction according to His priorities at a given time and according to what is needed. Not all matters are important at the same time—there are divine priorities—nor is revelation even required for leaders to reach acceptable decisions on many issues. The Lord provides a lot of revelation, but He does not provide it on everything.
  • He gives direction according to heavenly law and the circumstances of His children. One thing this means is that the Lord’s direction can change. Although it will still be based on eternal, divine principles, His instruction will be adapted to the situation His children find themselves in and in accordance with the divine timeline. One example: Christ proactively took the Gospel during His earthly ministry exclusively to the house of Israel, but then authorized Peter to take it to everyone. This pattern reflected divine design, of course, but it also entailed a complete reversal of policy. So again, the Lord’s direction to His people can change—and sometimes dramatically.

Certain criticisms of the Church are based on the failure to appreciate these patterns in how the Lord works with His prophets. It is said, for example, that if the Church were really led by revelation, the Lord would have revealed its name in 1830, when the Church was first organized, rather than waiting until 1838 to do so. All it takes to see the error in this thinking, however, is an understanding of how the Lord actually provides revelation. Once we understand that, this objection is seen to be without merit and simply dissolves (this example will be discussed in Part Two).

8. The Lord Permits Some Errors, and Prevents Others, According to His Divine Priorities

Because the Lord provides clear guidance and direction on the issues that matter most to Him, He prevents errors that would significantly harm or undermine His work. This is what it means to say that the Lord won’t allow the Church to be led astray, a promise that has been made multiple times.

But this does not mean that errors never occur. Because (as seen above) many matters are either relatively unimportant to the Lord at a given time, or can be worked out well enough without His direction, it is inevitable that some choices will be less than ideal, even though they fall in the acceptable range. Not everything is equally important to the Lord, and thus He willingly permits errors of a certain type. The Book of Mormon, for example, contains “the mistakes of men” (Title Page) and “imperfections” (Mormon 8:12)—and yet the Lord Himself testified that “as your Lord and your God liveth it is true” (D&C 17:6). The mistakes He permitted in that record did not change its truth.

The Lord, then, permits errors of a certain kind in His work. However, while it is valuable to note this, it is equally important to recognize that we aren’t any good at telling what those errors are. When it comes to the operation of the Lord’s kingdom, it is hard for our finite brains to tell the difference between something that is a mistake and something that is directed by the Lord for reasons our mortal eyes can’t see. (There are multiple examples of this.)

Critics typically fail to appreciate this reality. They are confident that they can tell what decisions are errors. The simple truth, however, is that we don’t know what we don’t know. As noted in #1, we don’t have the Lord’s infinite perspective, so we often don’t understand His purposes. We do know that He prevents some errors and permits others—according to His divine priorities—but we also know that it is hard for our mortal intellects to tell which is which. The good news, though, is that it doesn’t really matter: the Lord can tell, and, unlike the critics, we know that He is the One actually running the show, not us.

9. Official Teachings Come from the Scriptures and the Presiding Councils—Not from Individuals

In 1835, the Lord declared that “every decision made by either of these quorums [the First Presidency and the Twelve] must be by the unanimous voice of the same” (D&C 107:27). This command made clear how the Lord would govern His Church: it would be through His presiding councils. And since “every decision” would include decisions about what to teach, it is clear that official teachings, too, come only from these councils. The scriptures give us the doctrines of the kingdom, but in terms of mortals’ interpretations, the highest authority in the Church lies in these presiding councils—not in any individual.

This applies to Apostles, and even to the President of the Church. Thus, Brigham Young remarked that where there is no clear revelation on a matter, “it is as much my right to differ from other men, as it is theirs to differ from me, in points of doctrine and principle.”[8] This remark is not well-known, but I think it should actually be his most famous statement. Brigham Young recognized that when he was not acting officially in teaching doctrine—i.e., when he was not relying on clear scriptural teachings (and therefore not reflecting the views of all the presiding Brethren)—members were entirely free to differ from him.

According to Brigham Young, the arbiter of truth was not Brigham Young.[9]

And the same, of course, applies to every other individual in the Church. Critics often fail to recognize this, and thus point to one teaching or another that is out of the ordinary as if it reflected the Church itself. But, as has long been understood, no such teaching reflects the Church itself.[10] Failing to appreciate this, critics can easily find themselves lodging criticisms that, ultimately, are vacuous.

10.  The Lord Rarely Explains Himself, Even to Prophets

Dallin H. Oaks once observed: “If you read the scriptures with this question in mind, ‘Why did the Lord command this or why did he command that,’ you find that in less than one in a hundred commands was any reason given. It’s not the pattern of the Lord to give reasons.”[11]

And note that these were commands often given to prophets. Elder Neal A. Maxwell thus stated: “There will be times when we follow the prophets even as they are in the very act of obedience themselves.” He remarked that, like Adam offering sacrifices after being expelled from the Garden of Eden, prophets will often not be able to explain “why they are doing what they are doing.”[12] He thus said on another occasion simply that “the Lord gives more instructions than explanations.”[13] Elder Neil L. Andersen said the same: “The Lord’s voice,” he remarked, “often comes without explanation.”[14]

So the Lord rarely explains Himself about the direction He gives. He expects us to trust Him without explanations. And something significant follows from all this: Because the Lord rarely offers explanations for what He directs—even to prophets—it is risky for anyone to try to come up with explanations. After observing that it is not the Lord’s pattern to give reasons for His instructions, Elder Oaks added that “we [mortals] can put reasons to revelation. We can put reasons to commandments. When we do, we’re on our own.”[15]

This is a crucial point. Apostles and prophets are authoritative in following the directions they receive from the Lord, but they are not authoritative in offering explanations they have not received from Him. If and when they propose explanations that the Lord Himself has not given, they are “on their own” and do not speak officially for Him.

Elder Oaks thus cautioned: “Let’s don’t make the mistake that’s been made in the past . . . [of] trying to put reasons to revelation. The reasons turn out to be man-made to a great extent. The revelations are what we sustain as the will of the Lord and that’s where safety lies.”[16]

When critics object to various leaders’ explanations of one matter or another, they may be correct. But, because such explanations were never authoritative to begin with, their objections actually carry no weight against the Church itself.

A Central Truth about How the Lord Leads All the Saints

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

President Russell M. Nelson stated:

You may not always understand every declaration of a living prophet. But when you know a prophet is a prophet, you can approach the Lord in humility and faith and ask for your own witness about whatever His prophet has proclaimed.[17]

Elder M. Russell Ballard also said of the teachings that come from prophets and other leaders: “I promise you in the name of the Lord that if you will listen not just with your ears but also with your heart, the Holy Ghost will manifest the truth unto you of the messages.”[18]

As seen earlier (under #2), it is not unusual for critics to accuse members of blind obedience. It is important to notice, however, that the Lord’s prophets do not ask for this—much less encourage it. They want members to be intelligent and to receive the confirmation of the Spirit. They want members to know for themselves, and to sustain and follow because they know for themselves.

Conclusion

One very fruitful way to go through life is to ignore the Church’s critics. This is a completely valid and natural option for those who, as discussed in #2, know by the Spirit that the Restored Gospel is true. When we know this, everything else is just noise, and it can all be completely set aside while we focus on things that matter most. Indeed, unless one is in the public sphere in some way, and trying to help others, it is hard to see the point in spending one’s time addressing critics already known to be wrong (and they are).

However, to the degree members do concern themselves with criticisms of the Church—either in addressing their own questions or in trying to help others—it pays to keep all eleven of the core truths above in mind: from a recognition of how little of God’s perspective mortals are able to have (#1), to His desire that we know for ourselves the truth of prophetic actions (#11), to everything in between. Criticisms of the Church all, I believe, overlook one or more of these core truths. If, in contrast, those who are interested explicitly recognize them, there is every reason to think that such members will be able to discern the flaw in every objection they encounter—and thus to help others do so as well.

Note: Simply for a sample, Part Two will address two matters raised in the CES Letter, and show how they each overlook one or more these eleven core truths.

*****

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.

Duane Boyce and Kimberly White with their book “The Last Safe Place: Seven Principles for Standing with the Prophets in Troubled Times,” emphasizing faith and prophetic guidance.

Click here to learn more.

[1] See, for example, Exodus 16:2–3; 17:3; Numbers 14:2.

[2] See, for example: 1 Kings 19:1–3, regarding Elijah; Alma 33:17, regarding Zenock; 1 Nephi 1:20, regarding Lehi; Mosiah 17:12–20, regarding Abinadi; Helaman 16:2, regarding Samuel the Lamanite; and Matthew 14:3–12, regarding John the Baptist.

[3] See, for example, Matthew 22:15; Luke 5:21; 6:1–7; and John 7:45–53; 9:16.

[4] D. Michael Quinn, Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, revised and enlarged edition. (Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, 1998).

[5] See, for example, William J. Hamblin, “That Old Black Magic,” FARMS Review of Books 12/2 (2000): 225–393; available at https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1473&context=msr.

[6] Hamblin, ibid., 389(n. 381).

[7] On this topic, see Duane Boyce and Kimberly White, The Last Safe Place: Seven Principles for Standing with the Prophets in Troubled Times (American Fork, Utah: Meridian Publishing, 2022), 51–71, 186–92.

[8] Brigham Young, “Saints Subject to Temptation, etc.,” A Discourse by President Brigham Young, Great Salt Lake City, April 17, 1853, Journal of Discourses, vol. 2: 123, https://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/digital/collection/JournalOfDiscourses3/id/7928.

[9] This general principle has long been understood. More than a century ago, for example, Elder Charles W. Penrose of the Twelve spoke of the sermons collected in the Journal of Discourses. He explained that they were not authoritative, but useful only to “give the ideas” of the various speakers. As opposed to the possibility that they were in any sense official, he affirmed that the teachings were “merely the expression of individuals, no matter how high they are in office.” He added that if those teachings do not agree with the standard works, “we do not adopt them.” (See Proceedings before the Committee on Privileges and Elections of the United States Senate, regarding Senator Reed Smoot, vol. II [Washington: Government Printing Office, 1904], 442, 443–44, https://books.google.com/books?id=w0MhAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false.) During the same period, George M. Reynolds, one of the seven presidents of the Seventy, was asked about a particular discourse by Brigham Young. Asked, in this context, whether everything a President of the Church says in his capacity as President becomes the doctrine of the Church, Elder Reynolds answered unequivocally, “No, sir,” and then emphasized that the standard works are “the authority on all questions of doctrine.” (Ibid., 54.) Joseph Fielding Smith, a member of the Twelve and a prominent doctrinal commentator, later taught the same principle. He stated that if someone teaches something in conflict with scripture “we can set it aside.” Indeed, he said that if his own words, or the teachings of any person “high or low, do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them.” “Let us have this matter clear,” he emphasized. “If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it.” See Joseph Fielding Smith, in Bruce R. McConkie, ed., Doctrines of Salvation, 3 vols. (Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1954–56), 3:203–204.

[10] See again n. 9.

[11] Dallin H. Oaks, Life’s Lessons Learned: Personal Reflections (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 2011), Kindle Edition, location 655–659.

[12] Neal A. Maxwell, All These Things Shall Give Thee Experience (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 1979), 115.

[13] Neal A. Maxwell, in Bruce C. Hafen, A Disciple’s Life: The Biography of Neal A. Maxwell (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 2002), 413.

[14] Neil L. Andersen, “The Prophet of God,” General Conference, April 2018, https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2018/04/the-prophet-of-god?lang=eng. For the same reason, Joseph Smith could say—as seen earlier—that although everything God commands is right, we may not see the reason “till long after the events transpire.” (Joseph Smith, “History, 1838–1856, volume D-1 [1 August 1842–1 July 1843] [addenda],” p. 3 [addenda], op. cit., and  Joseph Fielding Smith, ed., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith op. cit., 256.

[15] Dallin H. Oaks, Life’s Lessons Learned: Personal Reflections (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 2011), Kindle Edition, location 655–659.

[16] Ibid., 657.

[17] Russell M. Nelson, “Becoming True Millennials,” January 10, 2016, Young Adult Broadcast, https:// www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/worldwide-devotionals/2016/01/becoming-true-millennials?lang=eng.

[18] M. Russell Ballard, “His Word Ye Shall Receive,” General Conference, April 2001, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2001/04/his-word-ye-shall-receive?lang=eng. He applied this promise to the messages of General Conference speakers generally. Its strongest application, however, is to those who hold the keys to represent the Lord.