Thanks for your thoughts and analysis. Would that everyone placed the same value on truth. Some search for discrepancies in order to discredit the whole project. Others excuse discrepancies for the sake of the greater good. Either way, truth is a secondary matter in pursuit of another agenda. But Paul said, “We cannot do anything against the truth, but only for the truth.” (2 Corinthians 13:8)
I especially like the section about C.S. Lewis. And your understanding of the Gospels’ truth. Both points helped me a lot. Also, after reading about the content of the movie, and not having seen any reviews, I’m hoping that the negative ones focus on the same standards commonly used by serious critics-- plot structure and presentation, character development, acting skills
I have a couple observations that might be useful in framing this question about the facts of the story.
One of the less well known aspects of the late Michael Heiser’s ministry was his outreach and interest in the UFO and conspiracy theory communities, which he reached through the writing of two novels, an outlet where he could be more speculative in regards to his biblical studies on the nature of supernatural evil. The great thing about his work is that he could validate the concerns and fears of people who are convinced, but pull them back from the edge of the cliff by showing there is real evidence to trust the bible (the bible is “corrupted” in various ways to manipulate people according to different theories)
The 2nd of Michael Heiser’s two novels involves a plot with a fictionalized version of the OUR organization and a hero who is a kind of Ballard/“Batman” hybrid - and he profiles characters of several types of victims. Heiser had some real life experience with these people. In his podcast he interviewed some ladies who actually help counsel victims of various types of abuse, some of it from sex trafficking, others from cults and others who have been subject to government experiments.
It was interesting how from a Christian perspective, they viewed many of the mental health problems that survivors of abuse deal with as God given and created defense mechanisms to help people cope with these situations. No one escapes unscathed, but it’s the ability to cut off part of our personality and perception that allows people to endure such terrible experiences - they essentially separate themselves from the person who is being harmed, numb the feelings, and the “real” identity is protected. Obviously there are limits and problems with that, one of them being that memory is affected.
Malcolm Gladwell did a big thing on his podcast a few years back about Brian Williams lying about his combat journalism experience, and he dug into the stories of quite a few veterans (Jordan Peterson has talked about this as well, it’s connected to his self-authoring course) essentially, memory is very unreliable, especially when anything traumatic is involved, and we tend to “shape” our pasts based on what we hear and understand from our interactions with others and our own retelling of the story. Memory isn’t fixed - it changes over time. So it makes absolute sense that Ballard, who has consumed and dealt with a great deal of traumatic material, first and second hand, might not always have the most accurate reporting of facts, even though he is absolutely sincere and not trying to lie. He admitted in his talk with JBP that he has “millions of holes burned in his brain” from viewing the evidence. (And maybe there is something about the brain structure or chemistry of someone who can hold so vigorously to the Mormon faith)
In regards to the gospel writers, the experience they communicate is not traumatic, except for the experience of witnessing the crucifixion, which seems like one of the least contested details of the gospels. So I don’t think the facts about trauma and memory really could be used to malign the reliability of the gospel witness. In fact, it would seem that their faith allowed them to endure later trauma and persecution much in the same way the survivors of abuse held on to tokens of hope like Tim’s necklace.
Interesting, that sounds like an exciting novel by Heiser. I knew he wrote things with a fantastical vibe but didn't know he dealt with the world of sex trafficking.
I'm not sure I'm convinced that you could put all Ballard's discrepancies down to trauma. I would find that more plausible if he was being asked to recall, e.g., details about the abusive material he had to watch and report on. But inventing a whole incident, essentially, seems to fall in a different category.
I appreciate your response. This is neither the time nor venue to debate Mormonism. After several decades and countless discussions on the topic I’ve yet to experience one that actually changed anyone’s mind. But still, as someone who has come to respect and hold in high regard your writing and your spiritual wisdom and sensitivity, do you not see how presumptuous your sincere invitation is for me to explore the origins of my faith? A faith that I have attempted to faithfully live for 47 years? Do you genuinely believe I have not deeply considered, read about, or questioned the origins of Mormonism in all that time? Can you, perhaps, think back to a time when an atheist or agnostics or even another Christian called into question the veracity, reasonableness, or credibility of your faith? Do you remember how that felt?
Of course, people call my faith into question all the time. It doesn't particularly surprise or offend me. I welcome the challenge to demonstrate why I think my faith is true.
I'm sorry you feel this way about my invitation to you. I can't be anything other than honest here. I want people to know the truth. I don't want them to put their faith in false prophets.
Calling a faith an “elaborate scam….founded by a certifiable scumbag” (a description also leveled against Christianity) hardly seems like the invitation to a good faith debate, and as I said, I have little interest in engaging in a substack thread debate that would inevitably waste your time and mine. With that said, I’m now genuinely curious to learn what books, journals, primary or secondary sources you have read to come to your opinion about Mormonism?
I'm not sure what your point is in bringing up the fact that someone could level this accusation at Christianity. Once again: Of course, people can and do make this accusation all the time. I'm not particularly fazed by it. I'm prepared to answer it, because I think the overwhelming preponderance of evidence is on my side.
I think the desire to not engage in a protracted debate here is quite mutual. As for sources, well, anyone can look this up:
For his justification, see Doctrine and Covenants 132:
61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.
62 And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.
63 But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed;
Here's an excerpt of an interview with Emma Smith which gives some of the flavor of the golden plates witnesses' testimony:
Question: Are you sure that he had the plates at the time you were writing for him?
Answer: The plates often lay on the table without any attempt at concealment, wrapped in a small linen tablecloth, which I had given him to fold them in. I once felt of the plates, as they thus lay on the table, tracing their outline and shape. They seemed to be pliable like thick paper, and would rustle with a metallic sound when the edges were moved by the thumb, as one does sometimes thumb the edges of a book.
[...]
Question: I should suppose that you would have uncovered the plates and examined them?
Answer: I did not attempt to handle the plates, other than I have told you, nor uncover them to look at them. I was satisfied that it was the work of God, and therefore did not feel it to be necessary to do so;
Major Bidamon here suggested: Did Mr. Smith forbid your examining the plates?
Answer: I do not think he did. I knew that he had them, and was not specially curious about them. I moved them from place to place on the table, as it was necessary in doing my work.
Thanks again for engaging. It is kind of you to respond at all.
You’ll likely not be surprised that a Wikipedia reference and a few links to sources I’m familiar with already are not going to be the final Jenga piece collapsing a lifelong faith. Years of reading and research and countless firsthand experiences within my faith have given me confidence in its theology and origins (even acknowledging how bizarre it sounds to modern perspectives.) All I will say here is that there are credible, persuasive answers to the points you raise above. If you were truly interested in learning more about the Mormon faith I (and many others) could refer you to several thoughtful, scripturally and scholarly-based sources that present a more comprehensive picture of the faith.
In the meantime, I will continue to enjoy your thoughtful, artful, and enriching takes on many of the issues of the day. If you knew me, I think you’d quickly realize we are much closer in spirit and aspiration than you may imagine.
Are you suggesting that Wikipedia is incorrect in its list of Smith's wives? The fact that he had them isn't in question, so I'm not sure why it's relevant that Wikipedia puts them all in one place.
In any case, thanks for the kind words. I don't doubt we have many worthwhile things in common.
I do not dispute that Joseph Smith and other early church leaders practiced polygamy. Just as I wouldn’t expect you to dispute that many Old Testament prophets practiced polygamy. I am a little surprised you believe this is news to members of the church in 2023. My point in calling out the Wikipedia post is simply to suggest we’re not likely going to find it to be a comprehensive, nuanced, or balanced take on the matter. I could refer you, for example, to Brian Hales multivolume series in the topic if you wanted a more thorough understanding of the topic. https://a.co/d/35wwzb8
As a subscriber and a practicing Mormon, I was deeply disappointed to read this paragraph: “Ballard is Mormon, which could tempt distrust before his case is even heard. Mormonism itself is an elaborate scam, after all, founded by a certifiable scumbag. A scumbag so charming that true believers will insist to this day that he wasn’t a scumbag.”
For the author to so blithely call into question the credibility or trustworthiness of millions of people based entirely on our religious affiliation was jarring. You’d think someone who admirably practices a strand of conservative Christianity in an increasingly hostile-to-faith secular world would be a little more sensitive to gross generalizations and stereotypes about other people of faith.
This simplistic and condescending disparagement of my faith, my family, and myself forces me to read future writings of this author with a little more skepticism and caution.
Hi Cody. Thanks very much for your consistent readership. To clarify, I wasn't saying that it would be a good thing to distrust Ballard merely because he's a Mormon. I was describing a temptation some people might be subject to given the origins of Mormonism. I do stand by my characterization of those origins though, and would sincerely encourage you to reexamine them. I don't regard Mormonism simply as another branch of Christianity. I think it's a separate religion. But it's not my intention to impugn your personal credibility or trustworthiness merely because of your faith. I apologize if that was how my point came across.
Thanks for your thoughts and analysis. Would that everyone placed the same value on truth. Some search for discrepancies in order to discredit the whole project. Others excuse discrepancies for the sake of the greater good. Either way, truth is a secondary matter in pursuit of another agenda. But Paul said, “We cannot do anything against the truth, but only for the truth.” (2 Corinthians 13:8)
I love your idea for a different movie.
I appreciate the compliment. Thanks for reading!
I especially like the section about C.S. Lewis. And your understanding of the Gospels’ truth. Both points helped me a lot. Also, after reading about the content of the movie, and not having seen any reviews, I’m hoping that the negative ones focus on the same standards commonly used by serious critics-- plot structure and presentation, character development, acting skills
. . . and directorial choices, cinematography, etc., Finally, the effort that you put into this piece is impressive. I enjoy your work here.
Thanks so much for reading! To your question, I did find one fair review, by Variety:
https://variety.com/2023/film/box-office/sound-of-freedom-box-office-success-1235664837/
I have a couple observations that might be useful in framing this question about the facts of the story.
One of the less well known aspects of the late Michael Heiser’s ministry was his outreach and interest in the UFO and conspiracy theory communities, which he reached through the writing of two novels, an outlet where he could be more speculative in regards to his biblical studies on the nature of supernatural evil. The great thing about his work is that he could validate the concerns and fears of people who are convinced, but pull them back from the edge of the cliff by showing there is real evidence to trust the bible (the bible is “corrupted” in various ways to manipulate people according to different theories)
The 2nd of Michael Heiser’s two novels involves a plot with a fictionalized version of the OUR organization and a hero who is a kind of Ballard/“Batman” hybrid - and he profiles characters of several types of victims. Heiser had some real life experience with these people. In his podcast he interviewed some ladies who actually help counsel victims of various types of abuse, some of it from sex trafficking, others from cults and others who have been subject to government experiments.
It was interesting how from a Christian perspective, they viewed many of the mental health problems that survivors of abuse deal with as God given and created defense mechanisms to help people cope with these situations. No one escapes unscathed, but it’s the ability to cut off part of our personality and perception that allows people to endure such terrible experiences - they essentially separate themselves from the person who is being harmed, numb the feelings, and the “real” identity is protected. Obviously there are limits and problems with that, one of them being that memory is affected.
Malcolm Gladwell did a big thing on his podcast a few years back about Brian Williams lying about his combat journalism experience, and he dug into the stories of quite a few veterans (Jordan Peterson has talked about this as well, it’s connected to his self-authoring course) essentially, memory is very unreliable, especially when anything traumatic is involved, and we tend to “shape” our pasts based on what we hear and understand from our interactions with others and our own retelling of the story. Memory isn’t fixed - it changes over time. So it makes absolute sense that Ballard, who has consumed and dealt with a great deal of traumatic material, first and second hand, might not always have the most accurate reporting of facts, even though he is absolutely sincere and not trying to lie. He admitted in his talk with JBP that he has “millions of holes burned in his brain” from viewing the evidence. (And maybe there is something about the brain structure or chemistry of someone who can hold so vigorously to the Mormon faith)
In regards to the gospel writers, the experience they communicate is not traumatic, except for the experience of witnessing the crucifixion, which seems like one of the least contested details of the gospels. So I don’t think the facts about trauma and memory really could be used to malign the reliability of the gospel witness. In fact, it would seem that their faith allowed them to endure later trauma and persecution much in the same way the survivors of abuse held on to tokens of hope like Tim’s necklace.
Interesting, that sounds like an exciting novel by Heiser. I knew he wrote things with a fantastical vibe but didn't know he dealt with the world of sex trafficking.
I'm not sure I'm convinced that you could put all Ballard's discrepancies down to trauma. I would find that more plausible if he was being asked to recall, e.g., details about the abusive material he had to watch and report on. But inventing a whole incident, essentially, seems to fall in a different category.
I appreciate your response. This is neither the time nor venue to debate Mormonism. After several decades and countless discussions on the topic I’ve yet to experience one that actually changed anyone’s mind. But still, as someone who has come to respect and hold in high regard your writing and your spiritual wisdom and sensitivity, do you not see how presumptuous your sincere invitation is for me to explore the origins of my faith? A faith that I have attempted to faithfully live for 47 years? Do you genuinely believe I have not deeply considered, read about, or questioned the origins of Mormonism in all that time? Can you, perhaps, think back to a time when an atheist or agnostics or even another Christian called into question the veracity, reasonableness, or credibility of your faith? Do you remember how that felt?
Of course, people call my faith into question all the time. It doesn't particularly surprise or offend me. I welcome the challenge to demonstrate why I think my faith is true.
I'm sorry you feel this way about my invitation to you. I can't be anything other than honest here. I want people to know the truth. I don't want them to put their faith in false prophets.
Calling a faith an “elaborate scam….founded by a certifiable scumbag” (a description also leveled against Christianity) hardly seems like the invitation to a good faith debate, and as I said, I have little interest in engaging in a substack thread debate that would inevitably waste your time and mine. With that said, I’m now genuinely curious to learn what books, journals, primary or secondary sources you have read to come to your opinion about Mormonism?
I'm not sure what your point is in bringing up the fact that someone could level this accusation at Christianity. Once again: Of course, people can and do make this accusation all the time. I'm not particularly fazed by it. I'm prepared to answer it, because I think the overwhelming preponderance of evidence is on my side.
I think the desire to not engage in a protracted debate here is quite mutual. As for sources, well, anyone can look this up:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Joseph_Smith%27s_wives
For his justification, see Doctrine and Covenants 132:
61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.
62 And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.
63 But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed;
This source discusses some false revelations:
http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/changech14.htm
Here's an excerpt of an interview with Emma Smith which gives some of the flavor of the golden plates witnesses' testimony:
Question: Are you sure that he had the plates at the time you were writing for him?
Answer: The plates often lay on the table without any attempt at concealment, wrapped in a small linen tablecloth, which I had given him to fold them in. I once felt of the plates, as they thus lay on the table, tracing their outline and shape. They seemed to be pliable like thick paper, and would rustle with a metallic sound when the edges were moved by the thumb, as one does sometimes thumb the edges of a book.
[...]
Question: I should suppose that you would have uncovered the plates and examined them?
Answer: I did not attempt to handle the plates, other than I have told you, nor uncover them to look at them. I was satisfied that it was the work of God, and therefore did not feel it to be necessary to do so;
Major Bidamon here suggested: Did Mr. Smith forbid your examining the plates?
Answer: I do not think he did. I knew that he had them, and was not specially curious about them. I moved them from place to place on the table, as it was necessary in doing my work.
Full text here:
http://www.moroni10.com/witnesses/Emma_Smith.html
Thanks again for engaging. It is kind of you to respond at all.
You’ll likely not be surprised that a Wikipedia reference and a few links to sources I’m familiar with already are not going to be the final Jenga piece collapsing a lifelong faith. Years of reading and research and countless firsthand experiences within my faith have given me confidence in its theology and origins (even acknowledging how bizarre it sounds to modern perspectives.) All I will say here is that there are credible, persuasive answers to the points you raise above. If you were truly interested in learning more about the Mormon faith I (and many others) could refer you to several thoughtful, scripturally and scholarly-based sources that present a more comprehensive picture of the faith.
In the meantime, I will continue to enjoy your thoughtful, artful, and enriching takes on many of the issues of the day. If you knew me, I think you’d quickly realize we are much closer in spirit and aspiration than you may imagine.
Are you suggesting that Wikipedia is incorrect in its list of Smith's wives? The fact that he had them isn't in question, so I'm not sure why it's relevant that Wikipedia puts them all in one place.
In any case, thanks for the kind words. I don't doubt we have many worthwhile things in common.
I do not dispute that Joseph Smith and other early church leaders practiced polygamy. Just as I wouldn’t expect you to dispute that many Old Testament prophets practiced polygamy. I am a little surprised you believe this is news to members of the church in 2023. My point in calling out the Wikipedia post is simply to suggest we’re not likely going to find it to be a comprehensive, nuanced, or balanced take on the matter. I could refer you, for example, to Brian Hales multivolume series in the topic if you wanted a more thorough understanding of the topic. https://a.co/d/35wwzb8
Bethel thank you for your information. You might be interested in this, http://naminghisgrace.blogspot.com/2023/07/the-sound-of-freedom-and-serious.html
As a subscriber and a practicing Mormon, I was deeply disappointed to read this paragraph: “Ballard is Mormon, which could tempt distrust before his case is even heard. Mormonism itself is an elaborate scam, after all, founded by a certifiable scumbag. A scumbag so charming that true believers will insist to this day that he wasn’t a scumbag.”
For the author to so blithely call into question the credibility or trustworthiness of millions of people based entirely on our religious affiliation was jarring. You’d think someone who admirably practices a strand of conservative Christianity in an increasingly hostile-to-faith secular world would be a little more sensitive to gross generalizations and stereotypes about other people of faith.
This simplistic and condescending disparagement of my faith, my family, and myself forces me to read future writings of this author with a little more skepticism and caution.
Hi Cody. Thanks very much for your consistent readership. To clarify, I wasn't saying that it would be a good thing to distrust Ballard merely because he's a Mormon. I was describing a temptation some people might be subject to given the origins of Mormonism. I do stand by my characterization of those origins though, and would sincerely encourage you to reexamine them. I don't regard Mormonism simply as another branch of Christianity. I think it's a separate religion. But it's not my intention to impugn your personal credibility or trustworthiness merely because of your faith. I apologize if that was how my point came across.