To watch this video on YouTube, click HERE.
Video Transcript:
Former Latter-day Saint Johnny Harris just released his third and final video on the Church, and boy do we have a lot to talk about.
I’m going to start off with a fairly sharp critique, but it’s one that can go both ways. Hear me out. [Clip] It’s hard to encapsulate this in just one clip because it’s not just an incorrect statement or a factual error–it’s a general attitude that permeates a lot of videos I see from former members, including Johnny’s. It’s this attitude of,
Man, I used to believe a lot of this stuff, but now I’ve left the Church, and I am enlightened. I can now see how indoctrinated I was. If only you were enlightened like I am, and knew what I know, you would make the same decisions that I did. But how sad is it that there are still people with their heads in the sand who believe in this stuff.
Of course, he doesn’t explicitly say that, but that’s the vibe that I often get as he talks about the Church. I’m sure that’s somewhat subjective. Not everyone comes off like this, and those who do are probably doing it by accident. But as a believing member, it feels a bit dehumanizing. I firmly believe that rational people can look at the same evidence and sincerely come to vastly different conclusions about it, and still be rational people. And I’d be willing to bet that Johnny believes that as well. But I felt like this video indirectly treats believing Latter-day Saints a bit like zoo animals — a spectacle to be observed, rather than real people to be understood, as Johnny is seeking to be understood.
I can’t tell you how tired I am of feeling like my religion is just a spectacle.
Now, it’s a two-way street. And sometimes it’s us who come off as the enlightened ones looking down with pity on those who leave. This is something that I think both sides can improve on, including myself. And even while I disagree with a lot of Johnny’s perspectives on the Church, his video did help me come to a better understanding of what he has gone through, which I think is valuable. As President Nelson taught, “If friends and family should step away from the Church, continue to love them. It is not for you to judge another’s choice any more than you deserve to be criticized for staying faithful.”
ENVIRONMENT
Now, Johnny isn’t the type of creator who gets a lot of factual information flat-out wrong. We’ll talk later in this video about a pretty egregious error, but overall, he’s trying to get his facts straight. But that said, presentation matters. And what Johnny is really good at is creating an environment that makes you feel the way he wants you to feel about a given subject.
For example, Johnny starts off his video by taking us on an emotional journey throughout his time growing up as a believing member of the Church. I’m sure he’s not lying about his experience, but notice how the music / the animations / and his words / all combine to create a sort of a creepy environment designed to cause you to feel unsettled, or like something is deeply off about all of this.
Now, I’m not going to say that Johnny’s experience is invalid. But it is just his experience. Though it sounds like we had pretty similar upbringings in the Church, I have come to vastly different conclusions. I deeply appreciate the teachings and structure the Church provides, and I’m here for the long haul. But this does bring us to perhaps the most prevalent theme throughout Johnny’s video: Control.
CONTROL
Over and over again, he emphasizes this idea that Church leaders are just trying to control you–your identity, your time, and your money. This isn’t a new criticism. In fact, a guy named Korihor made a similar argument in 75 BC. When asked why he was attacking the Church, he responded, “Because I do not teach the foolish traditions of your fathers, and because I do not teach this people to bind themselves down under the foolish ordinances and performances which are laid down by ancient priests, to usurp power and authority over them, to keep them in ignorance, that they may not lift up their heads, but be brought down according to thy words. Ye say that this people is a free people. Behold, I say they are in bondage.”
Frankly, it sounds to me like the same age-old challenge between parents and children. The parents give the children rules. Some kids see that the rules are meant to help and protect them and the family, while others feel like some rules are arbitrary or just meant to stifle creativity or self-expression.
Is every rule the parents give going to be ideal? Probably not. For example, [Clip 25:00 on grooming & standards.] So I grew up with this booklet of standards as well. It includes some awesome stuff that was a great protection to me as a teenager. There are also some sections that could have been improved. And to be clear, that’s probably exactly why the Church doesn’t use this booklet anymore. Instead of spelling out specific dress and grooming rules like older booklets, the current booklet is much more principle-based. Instead of saying “Don’t date until you’re 16,” it says, “16 is a good guideline, but consult with your parents and leaders.”
By design, there is a lot more room for personal interpretation than there used to be. I understand and even agree with some of Johnny’s gripes about old standards, but at the same time, I’m grateful to belong to a Church that is willing to examine itself and improve over time. I think that’s admirable, and frankly, the new book of principle-based standards doesn’t get enough credit.
ROUTINIZATION OF CHARISMA
One of the other major themes or stories that Johnny tells is essentially the “corporationifying” of the Church. He emphasizes that early on when the Church was small, there was a lot of room for creative theological interpretation, but over time the Church has become more strict and correlated and organized and business-like and, of course, controlling.
So that process is actually really fascinating and really normal. Sociologist Max Weber found that in order for movements to survive and grow long after the death of their initial charismatic leader, at some point, they’ve got to institutionalize in some way.
Charismatic leaders rebel against societal norms or teachings — they go against the grain — and spark a revolution. But over time, movements can’t survive on constant charismatic fiery rebellion. That fire has to be translated into structure, rules, and traditions, etc. Frankly, things need to get a little more boring or routine. What was once revolutionary becomes orthodox. I think that’s what we’ve seen in our Church.
We see this in the early Christian church after the death of their charismatic leader, Jesus Christ. We see it with George Washington and the birth of the United States of America. It’s all over the place.
TEMPLE RECOMMEND INTERVIEWS
Another topic Johnny seems to take issue with is the Latter-day Saint temple recommend interview. [Clip]. So the temple recommend interview questions have changed somewhat over time, and I’m sure they’ll be refined more in the future, but I don’t think it’s weird for there to be a standard that people are expected to meet in order to enter the temple.
Potential patrons of the ancient Israelite temple were expected to be righteous, speak the truth, do right by their neighbor, and keep their oaths. Two thousand years ago, there were inscriptions around the temple sanctuary warning that those who were not permitted to enter but did anyway would be killed. If people want to participate in modern-day temple ordinances, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to verify that they believe in the teachings of the Church and are striving to follow them. I mean, if you’re not striving to follow the Law of Chastity, you probably shouldn’t be going to the temple where you promise to… follow the Law of Chastity. If you reject the law of 10% tithing, you probably shouldn’t be going to the temple where you promise to be willing to live the law of 100% consecration.
Anyway, the recommend questions are all publicly available, so people know what to expect. Let’s keep going.
B H ROBERTS
Shifting gears, Johnny also took some time in his video to talk about the keystone of our religion, the Book of Mormon. [Clip.]
So to be honest, this is probably the crux of why Johnny and I have come to very different conclusions about the Church. Johnny emphasizes just how much weight this keystone carries, but he never actually undermines it. All he essentially says is that there were a lot of non-members and scholars who thought the Book of Mormon was made up, but he doesn’t actually tell us if it’s a fraud, where it came from, or how it really came to be. And he doesn’t cover it in his past videos either. He just kind of shrugs it off and moves on. And that’s really where the rubber seems to always meet the road, for me. Is the Book of Mormon true, or not? If it’s not, then how did Joseph Smith create it? And is there actual evidence to support that narrative? Did he have golden plates, or not? If he didn’t, then what did the witnesses see, touch, and witness of throughout their lives? What is the alternative explanation that makes sense of the available evidence? Sure, let’s talk about beards at BYU and the Strength for Youth pamphlet and control— but ultimately, as he rightly points out, the Book of Mormon is the keystone. And my guess is that if Johnny had a good solution to this quandary, he would tell us. The fact that he sidesteps this issue suggests to me that he himself is probably still grappling with these questions. And I don’t blame him. It’s a conundrum.
Now, he does say that some faithful Latter-day Saint scholars really started to dig into the Book of Mormon, and lost their faith. To support this claim, he provides one quote from B H Roberts. This is probably the most egregious error in his entire video. The reality is that B H Roberts never lost his faith in the Book of Mormon. This quote is from B H Roberts, but he’s playing the role of Devil’s Advocate. How do we know this? In the midst of doing this study on the Book of Mormon, he sent a letter to President Heber J. Grant and the Quorum of the Twelve apostles precisely about the work he was doing. This is a long quote, but it’s important. He says,
“In writing out this report to you of those studies, I have written it from the viewpoint of an open mind, investigating the facts of the Book of Mormon origin and authorship. Let me say once for all, so as to avoid what might otherwise call for repeated explanation, that what is herein set forth does not represent any conclusions of mine. This report herewith submitted is what it purports to be, namely a ‘study of Book of Mormon origins,’ for the information of those who ought to know everything about it pro et con, as well that which has been produced against it, and that which may be produced against it. I am taking the position that our faith is not only unshaken but unshakeable in the Book of Mormon, and therefore we can look without fear upon all that can be said against it.”
And just for good measure, this was a topic that Stephen Smoot and I covered in more depth in our past interview.
Why didn’t Johnny include any of this context? I can only speculate, but based on Johnny’s source list, it looks like the information on B H Roberts came from an interview with John Dehlin, a former member and the host of the very critical Mormon Stories Podcast. That may or may not explain why some of this important context was left out. And by the way, just as a quick tangent: I find it really interesting that when Johnny references one of my videos, we get the clarification that “While notably from an apologist, this summary is well sourced.” But when he sources an antagonistic source like John Dehlin, there’s no warning that the information is “notably from a critic.” Just pointing that out. I’m a little salty, but c’est la vie.
I wish Johnny the best. He does seem like a sincere guy. If you want to see our response to Johnny’s previous video about the Church, it’s right here. I’ll see ya there!