Click Here to Read My Ongoing Interview with Wade Englund

[_Tal Bachman]

Hi Wade

Thanks for agreeing to be interviewed.

Normally interviewers have bios of the people they're interviewing, but I don't have any of you. Perhaps then we should start with you just telling us a bit about yourself. How old are you? Where are you from, and where do you live now? What do you do for a living? Marital status? Kids? Mission? Born in the church or convert?

Perhaps you could also comment on your special interest in online Mormon discussions. How did it begin? What motivates you? Have you ever published with FARMS or Dialogue or something like that? etc.

Over to you.

Tal

[_wenglund]

I am 54-years-old, I am from the Seattle area, but now live in Sandy, Utah. I am a partner in a land development project and also working to get a Masters degree in Social Work and licensed as a Cognitive Behavioral Therapist. I am single, never married, and no kids. I served my mission in what was then called the Texas South Mission, and I was born into the Church.

My interest in discussing things Mormon began on my mission. I served in the Bible Belt, and there I first encountered anti-Mormon material. What motivates me is exploring and dealing with what I believe motivates anti-Mormon. THe only thing published of mine in FARMS material was specific mention, in someone elses article, of my Top Ten Reasons to Love Anti-Mormons, as well as my Fallacy Alert and Point/Counterpoint pages. I haven't had anything published in Dialogue. There are several reasons for this. First, I have never submitted things to those organizations. Second, my approach to Mormon discussions didn't fit their approach. And, third, my writing is not pleasant or easy for a lot of people to read.

As of a year and a half ago, I left LDS apologetics in order to pursue my Anti Bigotry Initiative. If interested, I explain here why I made that change. That page also contains a link to my ABI page.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Tal Bachman]

Hi Wade

Since we're not talking in real-time, maybe I can number my questions, and then you can just post answers after the corresponding numbers on your reply.

1.) It is interesting you are working on a master's degree. At which college are you studying?

2.) You say you are interested in exploring what you believe motivates anti-Mormons. Would you tell us first how you define an "anti-Mormon", and then summarize what you believe, deep down, really motivates them?

3.) Someone recently mentioned to me you were banned from FAIR. Is that true, and if so, was your decision to leave Mormon apologetics in part prompted by that? What is your best guess as to why you were banned from FAIR, but not "Pahoran"?

4.) Some people might say that you posting on this very board constitutes engaging in Mormon apologetics. How would you reconcile continuing to defend Mormonism in online forums, with your stated decision not to do so anymore?

5.) Speaking of anti-Mormons, you write that "if they think various LDS principles, character, beliefs, practices, and actions, warrant public scrutiny, then their own personal character, thoughts, and behaviors, should be subjected to the same". Is your position really that there is no difference between the question of the merits or defects of a particular claim, and what private-life decisions individuals (on either side) interested in that question might make? What do you believe is the necessary connection between those two things?

Over to you.

[_wenglund]

Hi Wade

Since we're not talking in real-time, maybe I can number my questions, and then you can just post answers after the corresponding numbers on your reply.

1.) It is interesting you are working on a master's degree. At which college are you studying?

Actually, I said I was working to get a masters degree. Currently my efforts consist of acquiring funding and trying to meet the entrance requirements. In the interim, I am studying textbooks and material from leaders in the field of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy.

2.) You say you are interested in exploring what you believe motivates anti-Mormons. Would you tell us first how you define an "anti-Mormon", and then summarize what you believe, deep down, really motivates them?

Yes, I define anti-mormonism here, and I explore various motivations and causations here.

3.) Someone recently mentioned to me you were banned from FAIR. Is that true, and if so, was your decision to leave Mormon apologetics in part prompted by that? What is your best guess as to why you were banned from FAIR, but not "Pahoran"?

Yes, I was banned from FAIR over a year and a half ago. I was banned because my posts, or more specifically the subject of my posts, were intentionally and almost exclusively personal, and thus inconsistent with FAIR objectives and rules. As explained in the article I linked to in my previous post, my reason for leaving apologetics and apologetic organizations is because their focus is on the non-personal (at least in terms of general subject matter) and my focus is on the personal. I was banned from FAIR after I made the decision to leave apologetics.

4.) Some people might say that you posting on this very board constitutes engaging in Mormon apologetics. How would you reconcile continuing to defend Mormonism in online forums, with your stated decision not to do so anymore?

I didn't say I wouldn't defend my faith any more. I said I would defend it using a different approach than apologetics. Mine is an indirect defense, whereas apologetics is direct.

5.) Speaking of anti-Mormons, you write that "if they think various LDS principles, character, beliefs, practices, and actions, warrant public scrutiny, then their own personal character, thoughts, and behaviors, should be subjected to the same". Is your position really that there is no difference between the question of the merits or defects of a particular claim, and what private-life decisions individuals (on either side) interested in that question might make? What do you believe is the necessary connection between those two things?

Private-life decisions, and particularly decisions involving one's development, character, and intellectual/emotional/psychological makeup, unavoidably influence, and comprise in part, the lense through which my faith is being scrutinized. All I am suggesting is that a single standard of scrutiny be applied to the lense (and the things influencing and comprising it) as applied to the thing being viewed through the lense. There is a reason that my faith is viewed and reacted to so differently by either side. I believe there is value, merit, and interest in exploring those reasons.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[NorthboundZax]

Hi Wade

1.) What piqued your interest in Cognitive Behavioural Therapy?

2.) In reading your comments on the definition of anti-Mormonism, and what motivates anti-Mormons, i.e., that it is "toxic", that anti-Mormons have an "unhealthy" or underdeveloped psyche, it struck me that some people would consider you be describing vocalized disbelief in Mormonism as a form of mental illness - as a pathology. Would you concur that you are describing it in this way?

3.) A few FAIR regulars have expressed surprise that you were banned but Pahoran was not, as they feel that the style of your posts was very similar. What is your best guess as to why you were banned, but Pahoran wasn't?

4.) You write that not only what is observed through the lens, but the lens itself, should be scrutinized. This implies a presumption that our lenses, so to speak, may be faulty - that what and how we observe may be affected, and even dramatically distorted, by things like our wishes, our strengths and weaknesses of character, etc. Further implied in this is that disbelief in Mormonism has a psychological explanation. Most people, Mormon and non-Mormon, would find this statement unobjectionable. But it raises an obvious question, and I would like to get your asnwer to it. It is this:

Would you agree that if disbelief in any particular thing may have a purely psychological explanation, that conversely, belief in any particular thing may have a purely psychological explanation? Why or why not?

5.) It also raises this question: What is it about you personally, that you feel may have inclined you to believe that the church Joseph Smith founded is the only true religion in the world?

6.) Would you say you "love the church"? If so, why?

7.) A number of members have told me that they "need" the church to be true. Would you say you feel that in some ways, you need the church to be true? If yes, why? And if not, what kind of person do you think you'd be right now, given your own innate hardwiring and your growing up years, if you'd never heard of Mormonism?

Over to you.

[_wenglund]

Hi Wade

1.) What piqued your interest in Cognitive Behavioural Therapy?

I was doing some research on hate and the causes of bigotry in general, and I came across an article by Aaron Beck regarding the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center. The article resinated so strongly with me that I was moved to investigate the author further. Subsequently, I learned that he was the founder of CBT, and upon examining that field further, I saw it as an excellent fit and complement to my own philosophy for dealing with socio-emotional and psychological issues.

2.) In reading your comments on the definition of anti-Mormonism, and what motivates anti-Mormons, i.e., that it is "toxic", that anti-Mormons have an "unhealthy" or underdeveloped psyche, it struck me that some people would consider you be describing vocalized disbelief in Mormonism as a form of mental illness - as a pathology. Would you concur that you are describing it in this way?

No. Mental illness seems to suggest a bio/genetic causation that typically is not fixable, and merely managed through medication. Rather, I prefer to view anti-Mormonism as cognitive distortions or bad/dysfunctional fixes (in the form of thoughts and behaviors) for personal/social deficits. Anti-Mormonism (not to be confused with disbelief or a loss of belief in Mormonism) is a result of poor personal choices and thought processess that can definately be fixed, to the benefit of all parties concerned. If it helps, I view anti-Mormonism as similar in causation and nature to anti-Semitism.

3.) A few FAIR regulars have expressed surprise that you were banned but Pahoran was not, as they feel that the style of your posts was very similar. What is your best guess as to why you were banned, but Pahoran wasn't?

Again, I wasn't banned because of posting style, but because of the content and subjectmatter of my posts. Pahoran's subjectmatter is apologetically oriented, and thus consistent with the FAIR objectives, whereas my subject matter was not apologetically oriented, and thus inconsistent with the FAIR objectives. As such, I was banned and he was not--irrespective of whether our posting styles are similar or not (I don't know that they are. He is a bit more witty and intelligent than I).

4.) You write that not only what is observed through the lens, but the lens itself, implies a presumption that our lenses, so to speak, may be faulty - that what and how we observe may be affected, and even dramatically distorted, by things like our wishes, our strengths and weaknesses of character, etc. Further implied in this is that disbelief in Mormonism has a psychological explanation. Most people, Mormon and non-Mormon, would find this statement unobjectionable. But it raises an obvious question, and I would like to get your asnwer to it. It is this:

Would you agree that if disbelief in any particular thing may have a purely psychological explanation, that conversely, belief in any particular thing may have a purely psychological explanation? Why or why not?

I don't think that disbelief has a "purely psychological explanation". In fact, I think it has more to do with epistemology/paradigms than psychology. I think the same is true of belief.

But, I hope you aren't confusing the issue of disbelief with that of anti-Mormonism (which may have a more significant emotional/psychological component).

5.) It also raises this question: What is it about you personally, that you feel may have inclined you to believe that the church Joseph Smith founded is the only true religion in the world?

It aligns best with the spiritual experiences I have had and the spiritual epistemology I have developed in relation thereto.

6.) Would you say you "love the church"? If so, why?

Yes. I believe that with all its human imperfections, if it is correctly understood, it is the most powerful system for good (particularly in terms of the eternities) available on the earth today.

7.) A number of members have told me that they "need" the church to be true. Would you say you feel that in some ways, you need the church to be true? If yes, why? And if not, what kind of person do you think you'd be right now, given your own innate hardwiring and your growing up years, if you'd never heard of Mormonism?

I am value driven, not needs driven, and that applies to the Church as well as other walks of my life. And, there is really no way to know where I would have ended up were I not born into the Church, and I don't see any point in speculating.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Tal Bachman]

Hi Wade

Thanks for those answers. They make sense.

Moving on to a few other issues...

As you know, there are many different types of Mormon belief. I want to just mention two here: let's call them for the moment, "literalist" and "non-literalist". Some folks - literalists - believe devoutly that Mormon truth claims are true, and believe devoutly that it matters whether they are true. Other folks say that whether truth claims are true or false is pretty much irrelevant to them, since they "find God through Mormonism".

1.) Which of the two types is closest to your own type of belief? If neither, how would you describe the nature of your belief?

2.) On a related note, as you may know, Richard Bushman, in his recent biography of Joseph Smith, stated that it has not been definitively established that America is the setting for the Book of Mormon. Do you agree or disagree with that statement? Why?

3.) In his 2003 General Conference talk "Loyalty", Pres. Hinckley stated that the church "was either a fraud, or it is not". Do you agree or disagree with that? Why?

4.) If you came to feel certain that Joseph Smith did not tell the truth about his experiences, and the church he started was a fraud, would you end your affiliation with the church? Or do you think you would keep attending for other reasons, say, social or emotional support, or out of appreciation for the good you believe the church does, etc.?

Talk to you soon,

Tal

[_wenglund]

Hi Wade

Thanks for those answers. They make sense.

Moving on to a few other issues...

As you know, there are many different types of Mormon belief. I want to just mention two here: let's call them for the moment, "literalist" and "non-literalist". Some folks - literalists - believe devoutly that Mormon truth claims are true, and believe devoutly that it matters whether they are true. Other folks say that whether truth claims are true or false is pretty much irrelevant to them, since they "find God through Mormonism".

1.) Which of the two types is closest to your own type of belief? If neither, how would you describe the nature of your belief?

I am not sure the labels fit what you describe, but I have great confidence in the verity of the truth claims of the CoJCoLDS. If it turns out that my confidence was misplaced, then how that will affect me will depend upon what the truth turns out to be. For example, if it turns out that there is no God, and that life ceases upon death, then I suppose that will be made evident when I die, but then I will be completely unaffected because there would be nothing of me to be affected. Whereas, if it turns out that God does exist, but is, as some Evangelicals believe, a respector of persons, and I end up arbitrarily as one of the unchosen, and will burn in hell in spite of my good intents and actions, then I am not sure how I will react. I tend to be positively minded and will likely try and make the very best of it since there would be nothing I could do to change it anyway.

It is similar to my confidence in my beliefs about the physical world. If it turns out that reality is not as I thought, then my reaction would depend upon what reality actually turns out to be. If it turns out that that I don't actually exist, then I will be unaffected since my existence would be necessary for me to be affected. If it turns out that I have been living in a Matrix, then I will try and find a phone. ;-)

But, to be honest, I don't find much value in exploring "what if it is not true" questions. I find it more efficacious to focus my attention on determining to the best of my ability "what is true", and leave it at that.

2.) On a related note, as you may know, Richard Bushman, in his recent biography of Joseph Smith, stated that it has not been definitively established that America is the setting for the Book of Mormon. Do you agree or disagree with that statement? Why?

While it seems to me the most logical location, I agree that there is no definitive evidence. It is yet a matter of faith, and one that I have strong confidence in.

3.) In his 2003 General Conference talk "Loyalty", Pres. Hinckley stated that the church "was either a fraud, or it is not". Do you agree or disagree with that? Why?

Yes, I agree. This is the case by definition--what I mean by this is that if the Church fits the definition of "fraud", then it is, by definition, a fraud. If it doesn't fit the definition of fraud, then it is not, by definition, a fraud. Either it is a fraud, or it isn't.

Also, I think that the extra-ordinary nature of the Church's truth claims unavoidably make it an either/or situation as well.

4.) If you came to feel certain that Joseph Smith did not tell the truth about his experiences, and the church he started was a fraud, would you end your affiliation with the church? Or do you think you would keep attending for other reasons, say, social or emotional support, or out of appreciation for the good you believe the church does, etc.?

Again, for myself, I don't find much value in looking at "what if it might not be true" questions.

Granted, it might provide me with some insights into some of the choices of those who have lost faith. But, I am rather open-minded and respectful of such things anyway (at least as long as their choices are respectful of my continued faith), so I don't see the point.

Instead, my inclination is to pursue the "what is true" question, and act on the things I have already gained confidence in, and continue to grow therein.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Tal Bachman]

Hi Wade

You write that you have "great confidence in the verity of the truth claims of the CoJCoLDS". You further write that "if it turns out that my confidence was misplaced, then how that will affect me will depend upon what the truth turns out to be", before going to describe a few possible outcomes.

I believe many of those familiar with Moroni 10:3-5 would find your language here surprising. You even go so far as to contemplate the possibility that there might not be any God at all. Indeed, your entire answer here appears to reveal the bedrock of your testimony, if it can be called that, to be optimistic but pragmatic, belief-based calculation as opposed to the knowledge promised in Mormonism's foundational epistemic claim. Your answer reminds me of Pascal's Wager - but obviously, this type of reasoning could have no place if Moroni's promise was really true, could it?

So permit me to ask a few follow-ups here:

1.) Would you say, as many Mormons do, that you "know beyond a shadow of a doubt" that the religion Joseph Smith started, is the only true religion in the universe, so true that Jesus started the Mormon church 2000 years ago, and he and God are members of it? If you would not, how do you make sense of Moroni 10:3-5; and if you would, why the comments you made in your answer?

2.) Since you yourself spoke hypothetically at length in your answer, please answer this simple follow-up: If you could somehow know for certain that Mormonism was not what it claims to be, would you even want to know? Yes or no? If you would want to know, why would you, when as you say yourself, you "love" the church and feel it does a lot of good? And if you would not want to know, what do you think that might suggest about the the real nature of your own faith?

[_wenglund]

[color=darkred]Hi Wade

You write that you have "great confidence in the verity of the truth claims of the CoJCoLDS". You further write that "if it turns out that my confidence was misplaced, then how that will affect me will depend upon what the truth turns out to be", before going to describe a few possible outcomes.

I believe many of those familiar with Moroni 10:3-5 would find your language here surprising. You even go so far as to contemplate the possibility that there might not be any God at all. Indeed, your entire answer here appears to reveal the bedrock of your testimony, if it can be called that, to be optimistic but pragmatic, belief-based calculation as opposed to the knowledge promised in Mormonism's foundational epistemic claim. Your answer reminds me of Pascal's Wager - but obviously, this type of reasoning could have no place if Moroni's promise was really true, could it?

I suppose if people in and out of the Church were relatively ignorant of the nature of faith and knowledge, and thus were unaware of the overlap, on several levels, between these two notions (consisting of varying degrees of confidence); or if they were fundamentalistic in their thinking, and were thus overly narrow and rigid in how they conceptualize these notions; then I can see how they might think that. Certainly, I don't see the least incompatibility between Moroni's promise and Alma 32, or Moroni's promise and what I said. In fact, I think they each represent various aspect of the same epistemology.

I suppose, too, if these same people inanely confused a positive expression of belief with a philosophical response to a hypothetical question (that I explicitly said I tend not to think that way about or see value in exploring), then I can also see how they might think that as well. I certainly didn't confuse the two.

So permit me to ask a few follow-ups here:

1.) Would you say, as many Mormons do, that you "know beyond a shadow of a doubt" that the religion Joseph Smith started, is the only true religion in the universe, so true that Jesus started the Mormon church 2000 years ago, and he and God are members of it? If you would not, how do you make sense of Moroni 10:3-5; and if you would, why the comments you made in your answer?

I would be perfectly comfortable saying that, but I hesitate doing so because I am aware of how the relatively ignorant or fundamentalist thinkers out there may mis-interpret it, and I don't want to confuse them. I would be comfortable saying it because I understanding the nature of faith and knowledge and how the two overlap.

And, as I intimated in my previous post, I think the same way about the secular aspects of my epistemology. Whilst gardening, I can pick up a handful of earth and declare, "I know without a shadow of a doubt that this is dirt", yet when asked a hypothetical question about whether one can philosophically know whether we or our physical surroundings exist, I can consistently contemplate the possibility that the physical realm could be imagined result of a brain in a vat. It would be silly to think otherwise.

2.) Since you yourself spoke hypothetically at length in your answer, please answer this simple follow-up: If you could somehow know for certain that Mormonism was not what it claims to be, would you even want to know? Yes or no? If you would want to know, why would you, when as you say yourself, you "love" the church and feel it does a lot of good? And if you would not want to know, what do you think that might suggest about the the real nature of your own faith?

Again, I see about as much value in contemplating these "what if it is not true" hypothesticals as I do hypothetically contemplating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I am even more reluctant to voice my contemplations with someone who has demonstrated a propensity to confuse these kinds of philosophical musings with actual expressions of faith.

However, on the off chance that you might correctly understand what I say, let me PHILOSOPHICALLY answer your HYPOTHETICAL questions this way: as previously indicated, I am value driven and not needs driven, and my focus is on learning what is true, rather than what is not true. I am very comfortable to go wherever this value and focus lead me. If there are religious or secular beliefs/knowledge that are abandoned through growth in faith and knowledge, I see that as a good thing, but I don't see why or how that would change the "love" I had, and may yet retain, for them. If I move beyond the lower law of tithing to adopt the higher law of sacrifice, I will not love the law of tithing any less. Or, to use a secular example, the love I had for Santa Claus as a child is no less now than it was then (please, please, please, do not make the mistake of thinking that I believe the Church could be as ficticous as Santa Clause. I don't. In fact, I am very confident that it is not, and that the Church is true. This is my STATED BELIEF. My use of the Santa Clause analogy is to PHILOSOPHICALLY illustrate a HYPOTHETICAL point.)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-