Friday, September 18, 2026

Moroni Day 2026 - how to celebrate


Moroni Day is September 21. 

Lots of Latter-day Saints have talked about the importance of this date. We've posted about it here before, such as in 2022 here:

https://www.lettervii.com/2022/09/moronicumorah-day-september-21.html

Recently, Scripture Central did a special interview on the topic with Jack Welch. They suggested ways to celebrate. In this post, we'll suggest another way to celebrate Moroni Day this year.

(BTW, their interview was worth listening to, despite the unfortunate errors it contains. I commented on those here:

https://scripturecentralpeerreviews.blogspot.com/2026/09/moroni-day-podcast-good-and-not-so-good.html)

_____

To celebrate this year, people could read the first and most detailed account of Moroni's visit to Joseph Smith, which was published and republished several times during Joseph's lifetime. The version in his own History is found here:

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1834-1836/64

This essay by President Oliver Cowdery, published as Letter IV in the Messenger and Advocate in 1835, shows how closely Joseph was involved with this project to document early Church history. 

For example, when writing about Moroni's first visit, Oliver explained:

At length the family retired, and he, as usual, bent his way, though in silence, ...—he continued still to pray...
In this situation hours passed unnumbered—how many or how few I know not, neither is he able to inform me; but supposes it must have been eleven or twelve, and perhaps later, as the noise and bustle of the family, in retiring, had long since [p. 62] ceased.

Here we see Oliver asking Joseph what time of night it was when Moroni visited, and Joseph cannot tell him anything other than that he supposed it was around 11 or 12 pm, "or perhaps later." This is a prime example of what Oliver meant when he began this series of essays about Church history, when he wrote that "To do Justice to​ this subject will require time and space: we therefore ask the forbearance of our readers, assuring them that it shall be founded upon facts."

And throughout the essays, Oliver was careful to delineate facts vs assumptions and inferences. Regarding the time of Moroni's visit, Oliver explained why he could not precisely state the time of Moroni's visit; Joseph simply didn't know for sure.

It's also interesting that Joseph thought Moroni might have come after midnight, which would put the visit on September 22 instead of the tradition September 21.

At any rate, Oliver gave us other details, such as a description of Moroni, the biblical passages Moroni quoted, and Moroni's explanation that the record was "written and deposited not far from" Joseph's home near Palmyra and that Joseph had the "privilege, if obedient to the commandments of the Lord, to obtain and translate the same by the means of the Urim and Thummim, which were deposited for that purpose with the record."

Some scholars continue to claim that someone other than Moroni coined the term "Urim and Thummim" for the interpreters and that Joseph did not even use the Urim and Thummim to translate the plates. We can all compare their theories with what Oliver wrote here.

Another point: this "Letter IV" is the primary source that historians used to correct the error in the first publication of what became Joseph Smith - History in the Pearl of Great Price. When first published in the Times and Seasons in 1842, that account claimed it was Nephi who first visited Joseph Smith. Joseph never corrected that error--another reason why he could not have been the actual editor of the Times and Seasons--but later historians determined it was an error by his scribes, based largely on Oliver Cowdery's account.

Below is the version of Letter IV found in Joseph's own history. 


Letter IV.
Dear Brother:—
In my last, published in the 3d No. of the Advocate I apologized for the brief manner in which I should be obliged to give, in many instances, the history of this church. Since then yours [p. 60] yours of Christmas has been received, It was not my wish to be understood that I could not give the leading items of every important occurrence. at least so far as would effect my duty to my fellowmen, in such as contained important information upon the subject of doctrine, and as would render it intelligbly plain; but as there are, in a great house, many vessels, so in the history of a work of this magnitude, many items which would be interesting to those who follow, are forgoten. In fact, I deem every manifestation of the Holy Spirit, dictating the hearts of the saints in the way of righteousness, to be of importance, and this is one reason why I plead an apology.
You will recolect that I mentioned the time of a religious excitement, in and vicinity to have been in the 15th year of our brother J. Smith jr’s age—that was an error in the type—it should have been in the 17th.—
You will please remember this correction, as it will be necessary for the full understanding of what will follow in time. This would bring the date down to the year 1823.
I do not deem it to be necessary to write further on the subject of this excitement. It is doubted by many whether any real or essential good ever resulted from such excitements, while others advocate their propriety with warmth.
The mind is easily called up to reflection upon a matter of such deep importance, and it is just that it should be; but there is a regret occupying the heart when we consider the deep anxiety of thousands, who are lead away with a vain imagination, or a groundless hope, no better than the idle wind or the spider’s web.
But if others wer not benefited, our brother was urged forward and strengthened in the determination to know for himself of the certainty and reality of pure and holy religion.— And it is only necessary for me to say, that while this excitement continued, he continued, he continued to call upon the Lord in secret for a full manifestation of divine approbation, and for, to him the all important information if a Supreme being did exist, to have an assurance that he was accepted of him. This, most assuredly, was correct—it was right. The Lord has said, long since, and his word remains steadfast, that to him who knocks it shall be opened, & whosoever will, may come and partake of the waters of life freely.
To deny a humble penitent sinner a refreshing draught from [p. 61] this most pure of all fountains, and most desirable of all refreshments, to a thirsty soul, is a matter for the full performance of which the sacred record stands pledged. The Lord never said— “Come unto me, all ye that labor, and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest,” to turn a deaf ear to those who were weary, when they call upon him. He never said, by the mouth of the prophet “Ho, every one that thirsts, come ye to the waters,” without passing it as a firm decree, at the same time, that he that should after come, should be filled with joy unspeakable. Neither did he manifest by the Spirit to John upon the isle— “Let him that is athirst, come,” and command him to send the same abroad, under any other consideration, than that “whosoever would, might take of the water of life freely,” to the remotest ages of time, or while there was a sinner upon his footstool.
These sacred and important promises are looked upon in our day as being given, either to another people, or in a figurative form, and consequently require spiritualizing, notwithstanding they are as conspicuously plain, and are meant to be understood according to their literal reading, as those passages which teaches us of the creation of the world, and of the decree of its Maker to bring its inhabitants to judgment. But to proceed with my narrative.—
On the evening of the 21st of September, 1823, previous to retiring to rest, our brother’s mind was unusually wrought up on the subject which had so long agitated his mind—his heart was drawn out in fervent prayer, and his whole soul was so lost to every thing of a temporal nature, that earth, to him, had lost its charms, and all he desired was to be prepared in heart to commune with some kind messenger who could communicate to him the desired information of his acceptance with God.
At length the family retired, and he, as usual, bent his way, though in silence, where others might have rested their weary frames “locked fast in sleep’s embrace;” but repose had fled, and accustomed slumber had spread her refreshing hand over others beside him—he continued still to pray—his heart, though once hard and obdurate, was softend, and that mind which had often flitted, like the “wild bird of passage,” had settled upon a determined basis not to be decoyed or driven from its purpose.
In this situation hours passed unnumbered—how many or how few I know not, neither is he able to inform me; but supposes it must have been eleven or twelve, and perhaps later, as the noise and bustle of the family, in retiring, had long since [p. 62] ceased.— While continueing in prayer for a manifestation in some way that his sins were forgiven; endeavouring to exercise faith in the scriptures, on a sudden a light like that of day, only of a purer and far more glorious appearance and brightness, burst into the room.— Indeed to use his own description, the first sight was as though the house was filled with consuming and unqu[e]nchable fire. This sudden appearance of a light so bright, as must naturally be expected, occasioned a shock or sensation, visible to the extremities of the body. It was, however, followed with a calmness and serenity of mind, and an overwhelming rapture of Joy that surpassed understanding, and in a moment a personage stood before him.
Notwithstanding the room was previously filled with light above the brightness of the sun, as I before describe<​d,​> yet there seemed to be an additional glory surrounding or accompanying this personage, which shone with an increased degree of brilliancy, of which he was in the midst; and though his countenance was as lightning, yet it was of a pleasing, inocent and glorious appearance, so much so, that every fear was banished from the heart, and nothing but calmness pervaded the soul.
It is no easy task to describe the appearance of a messenger from the skies—indeed, I doubt their being an individual clothed with perishable clay, who is capable to do this work. To be sure, the Lord appeared to his apostles after his resurrection, and we do not learn as they were in the least difficultied to look upon him; but from John’s description upon Patmos, we learn that he is there represented as most glorious in appearance; and from other items in the sacred scriptures we have the fact recorded where angels appeared and conversed with men, and there was no difficulty on the part of the individuals, to endure their presence; and others where their glory was so conspicuous that they could not endure. The last description or appearance is the one to which I refer, when I say that it is no easy task to describe their glory.
But it may be well to relate the particulars as far as given[.] The stature of this personage was a little above the common size of men in this age; his garment was perfectly white, and had the appearance of being without seam. [p. 63]
Though fear was banished from his heart, yet his surprise was no less when he heard him declare himself to be a messenger sent by commandment of the Lord, to deliver a special message and to witness to him that his sins were forgiven, and that his prayers were heard; and that the scriptures might be fulfilled, which say— “God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; and base things of the world, and things which are despised, has God chosen; yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things which are that no flesh should glory in his presence. Therefore, says the Lord, I will proceed to do a marvelous work among this people, even a marvelous work and a wonder; the wisdom of their wise shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent shall be hid; for according to his covenant which he made with his ancient saints, his people, the house of Israel must come to a knowledge of the gospel, and own that Messiah whom their fathers rejected, and with them the fulness of the Gentiles be gathered in, to rejoice in one fold under one Shepherd”.
“This cannot be brought about untill first certain preparatory things are accomplished, for so has the Lord purposed in his own mind. He has therefore chosen you as an instrument in his hand to bring to light that which shall perform his act, his strange act, and bring to pass a marvelous work and a wonder. Wherever the sound shall go it shall cause the ears of men to tingle, and wherever it shall be proclaimed, the pure in heart shall rejoice, while those who draw near to God with their mouths, and honor him with their lips, while their hearts are far from him, will seek its overthrow, and the destruction of those by whose hands it is carried. Therefore, marvle not if your name is made a derission, and had as a by-word among such, if you are the instrument in bringing it, by the gift of God, to the knowledge of the people.”
He then proceeded and gave a general account of the promises made to the fathers, and also gave a history of the aborigenes of this , and said they were literal descendants of Abraham. He represented them as once being an enlightned and intelligent people, possessing a correct knowledge of the gospel, and the plan of restoration and redemption. He said this history [p. 64] was written and deposited not far from that place, and that it was our brother’s privilege, if obedient to the commandments of the Lord, to obtain and translate the same by the means of the Urim and Thummim, which were deposited for that purpose with the record.
“Yet,” said he, “the scriptures must be fulfilled before it is translated, which says that the words of a book, which were sealed, were presented to the learned; for thus has God determined to leave men without excuse, and show to the meek that his arm is <​not​> shortned that it cannot save.”
A part of the book was sealed, and was not to be opened yet. The sealed part, said he, contains the same revelation which was given to John upon the isles of Patmos, and when the people of the Lord are prepared, and found worthy, then it will be unfolded unto them.
On the subject of bringing to light the unsealed part of this record, it may be proper to say, that our brother was expressly informed, that it must be done with an eye single to the glory of God; if this consideration did not wholly characterize all his procedings in relation to it, the adversary of truth would overcome him, or at least prevent his making that proficiency in this glorious work which he otherwise would.
While describing the place where the record was deposited, he gave a minute relation of it, and the vision of his mind being opened at the same time, he was permitted to view it critically; and previously being acquainted with the place, he was able to follow the direction of the vision, afterward, according to the voice of the angel, and obtain the book.
I close for the present by subscribing myself as ever, your brother in Christ


Monday, September 14, 2026

Founded upon facts vs avoiding speculation by speculating

I continue to be amazed that, in our day of transparency and openness, any Latter-day Saint podcaster would put out a video about the setting of the Book of Mormon without giving viewers the known facts.

But it keeps happening.

Do these podcasters think their audiences are too lazy, or too deferential, to seek good information to make informed decisions? Or do they know their audiences merely seek bias confirmation instead?

Whatever happened to "trust, but verify" here?

We've recently seen how the Baja proponents (B2Cers) on the Stick of Joseph podcast tried to persuade people by simply censoring President Cowdery's statement of fact about Cumorah/Ramah in New York.



Anyone who bothers to look up the reference can see how misleading and dishonest this editing job is.

But at least the B2Cers admit that President Cowdery wrote about Cumorah. The M2Cers won't even do that. 

Now we have Kirk Magleby (an awesome guy and faithful Latter-day Saint) with a guest claiming that (i) the Gospel Topics Entry on Book of Mormon Geography mentions Cumorah (it does not) and (ii) that when it comes to Cumorah, people are "cherry picking" various quotations.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72rDQNcKq-4


Anyone can read the references and see that, when it comes to Cumorah, no one is "cherry picking." The historical sources, including General Conference talks by members of the First Presidency, have consistently, uniformly, and unambiguously referred to the hill in New York as the Cumorah/Ramah of the Book of Mormon. There are no "cherries" to pick that contradict that clear and obvious fact.

The M2Cers and B2Cers try to persuade their followers to repudiate the teachings about the New York Cumorah by confusing people. First, they either don't mention or else they censor what President Cowdery and others have declared. Second, they conflate (mingle) the two separate issues of (i) Cumorah and (ii) the rest of the geography. 

Regarding (i) Cumorah, there is no cherry picking possible because there are no "cherries" that contradict the New York Cumorah.

Regarding (ii) the rest of the geography there are plenty of cherries to pick because people have had a variety of opinions all along. 

Ironically, both the B2Cers and the M2Cers not only reject the facts as declared by President Cowdery, but they say we should avoid speculation and then engage in nothing but speculation.

Here's a prime example from Kirk's latest video:

10:30 We're supposed to avoid speculation. How can we avoid speculation? To my way of thinking is to approach it with humility and cautious caution and be really careful about what we're assuming. That's how we can be grounded in the text.

Right there we go.

That's how we're going to avoid speculation.

We are going to have the text of the Book of Mormon as our main guide. Excellent.

We're supposed to avoid opinions, personal uh theories and so forth. And the only way to do that is to just immerse ourselves in the text. Let the text speak for itself.

That dialog boils down to the claim that "we are going to avoid speculation by making assumptions and inferences based on our personal opinions about the meaning of the text."

To say the "text speaks for itself" is nonsense. No two people read the text identically because the text is vague and demands interpretation. That's why the M2Cers and B2Cers have to spend so much time trying to explain why "their opinions" are "better" than someone else's. 

____________

There are plenty of Latter-day Saints who prefer clear, unambiguous declarations over the personal opinions of scholars.

Let's review what President Cowdery wrote, as recorded in Joseph Smith's own history. When we read this, we see why the B2Cers and the M2Cers don't want their followers to know about what President Cowdery wrote.

we have thought that a full history of the rise of the church of the Latter Day Saints, and the most interesting parts of its progress, to the present time, would be worthy the perusal of the Saints.— If circumstances admit, an article on this subject will appear on in each subsequent No. of the Messenger and advocate, until the time when the church was driven from Jackson Co. Mo. by a lawless banditti; & such other remarks as may be thought appropriate and interesting.

That our narrative may be correct, and particularly the introduction, it is proper to inform our patrons, that our brother J. Smith Jr. has offered to assist us. Indeed, there are many items connected with the fore part of this subject that render his labor indispensible. With his labor and with authentic documents now in our possession, we hope to render this a pleasing and agreeable narrative, well worth the examination and perusal of the Saints.

To do <​Justice to​> this subject will require time and space: we therefore ask the forbearance of our readers, assuring them that it shall be founded upon facts.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1834-1836/48

In the eight essays on Church history, Oliver referred to facts over 20 times, just as he promised in these introductory paragraphs. One of those facts was the location of Cumorah/Ramah in New York.

All of this is unambiguous, clear, and obvious to anyone who reads the link to the Joseph Smith Papers. 

But the B2Cers and the M2Cers don't want you to do that.

Ask yourself why.



Wednesday, September 9, 2026

All, Some, None and the FAITH model

In light of the controversy over the Baja model, and the ongoing M2C and SITH models, I'm posting here a chapter from my book The Rational Restoration, which explains the FAITH model and offers a simple application.

_____ 

This chapter applies the FAITH model by presenting a simplified method of analysis to clarify different beliefs.

Two basic narratives have arisen about the truth claims made by Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery regarding the foundational events of the Restoration. These truth claims offer a binary choice.

(i) The truth claims demonstrated divine intervention,

OR

(ii) The truth claims were not divine because they were

(a) unproven and delusional or deceitful claims that have naturalistic explanations or

(b) the product of sinister supernatural influences.

 

Within category (i), believers accept all or some of what Joseph and Oliver taught, leaving them free to entertain a range of narratives depending on how closely they adhere to what Joseph and Oliver taught.

Within category (ii), nonbelievers accept none of the truth claims made by Joseph and Oliver, and they object on either naturalistic or supernatural grounds.

Relative belief in what Joseph and Oliver claimed

All

Some

None

Believe all of what Joseph and Oliver claimed.

Believe some, but not all, of what Joseph and Oliver claimed.

Believe none of what Joseph and Oliver claimed.




Advocates of each narrative can find historical evidence to support their respective interpretations. Everyone is looking at the same facts, but then people diverge based on assumptions, inferences and theories.

For example, consider this post from well-known critic:

The leaders of the Mormon church continue to blame the youth leaving on them having 'anti-Christ' teachings when in reality it's because the youth are not as afraid of looking at information about the LDS church as older generations are... and they're finding out it's not true.

When we run this post through the FAITH model, we can quickly isolate facts from assumptions, inferences, and theories. There are no clear facts stated—even though the post claims it is giving us facts. When it says “in reality,” that’s a rhetorical opinion, not a fact.

Is it a fact that youth “are not as afraid” as older generations? 

Aside from the overgeneralization, the substance of the claim is dubious. To the youth, everything is new under the sun. They’re naturally curious and uninformed. Many in the older generation have seen and heard the critical narratives so many times that they don’t feel a need to rehash them yet again. They may be “weary” rather than “afraid.” Labeling them as “afraid” is pejorative and argumentative, not factual.

Besides, today every generation has equal access to the Internet and thus the same information.

When the post says the youth are “looking at information about the LDS church,” information can be supportive or critical. Presumably people are looking at both categories. And if so, which category are they “finding out” is “not true” here?

The author, as a critic, presumably wants readers to infer that young people are “looking at” critical information and “finding out” the church’s truth claims are “not true.” That would be his framing.

But what he actually wrote supports the opposite conclusion; i.e., that the youth are looking at the information the author promotes and are finding out that his critical information is not true. That would be my framing.

We start with the identical facts, but after applying our assumptions, inferences, etc., we reach completely opposite conclusions or hypotheses.

When viewed with that degree of clarity, charity, and understanding, there is no incentive to contend about our differences. We can understand exactly how we reached our respective conclusions (hypotheses) and proceed from there. We feel no compulsion to convert, convince, or compel because we realize we are not disagreeing about fact, but about opinion.

_____

Because we start with a focus on issues involving the Restoration, particularly those related to the keystone of our religion (the origin and setting of the Book of Mormon), we've identified three broad categories of people who have engaged with these issues.

In doing so, we recognize everyone is different. These categories serve as analytical tools only. Any individual may find affinity with any group on a given specific topic.

The objective is to seek greater understanding by enabling side-by-side comparison. Comparisons facilitate greater clarity and charity.

Important: the tool does not impose a value judgment on which approach is better or worse, but it assists others who assess a particular issue to make their own informed decisions.

Under the right circumstances—the alternatives are available for comparison side by side, and the wording of the alternatives leaves nothing to the imagination—people can think their way out of the fallacy.

Steven Pinker[1]

 




Clarity requires isolation of facts, assumptions, inferences, theories, and hypotheses (the FAITH model). The understanding process is nonjudgmental. If anyone brings factual errors to our attention, they will be promptly noted and appropriate corrections made.

These are the three broad categories, using terminology familiar to those involved with these discussions. The groups are organized as a continuum, but there is no implied preference for “All” just because A is the first letter in the alphabet.

The order could be reversed just as easily.

Believe what Joseph and Oliver claimed

All

Some

None

Believe all of what Joseph and Oliver claimed about the origin and setting of the Book of Mormon

Believe some, but not all, of what Joseph and Oliver claimed about the origin and setting of the Book of Mormon

Believe none of what Joseph and Oliver claimed about the origin and setting of the Book of Mormon

 





Each of these groups is overbroad. People who generally identify themselves within the description in one box may have a variety of views about how to interpret the teachings of Joseph and Oliver that puts them in one or two of the other boxes on some issues. But the classifications are useful for analytical and clarity purposes.

Application – Lucy Mack Smith

The all/some/none model can be applied to any historical evidence. In the following example, everyone agrees on the facts, but they divide into three categories because of their assumptions, inferences, and theories, which lead them to reach entirely different hypotheses (multiple working hypotheses). To repeat, obviously the all/some/none classification is a generalized summary. Any individual may have a different set of assumptions, inferences, etc.

Fact (an objective fact everyone agrees upon): Because we can all see the original document in the Joseph Smith Papers, everyone agrees that the document exists. We can all see that the handwriting is by Martha Jane Knowlton Coray and Howard Coray, who later reported they acted as scribes for Lucy’s dictation. Lucy Mack Smith wrote a letter to her son William, explaining that

People are often enquiring of me the particulars of Joseph’s getting the plates seeing the angels at first and many other thing which Joseph never wrote or published I have told over many things pertaining to these matters to different persons to gratify their curiosity indeed have almost destroyed my lungs giving these recitals to those who felt anxious to hear them I have now concluded to write down every particular as far as possible and if those who wish to read them will help me a little they can have it all in one piece to read at their leasure[2]

With this historical background, presumably we can all agree that Lucy dictated her history in 1844. That’s the easy part.

We can also agree to the fact that she reported that the first night he appeared to Joseph Smith, the divine messenger told Joseph that

the record is on a side hill on the Hill of Cumorah 3 miles from this place remove the Grass and moss and you will find a large flat stone.”[3]

People diverge over how to handle what Lucy reported; i.e., is her report factual or not? Did she hear this directly from Joseph or did she compose the exchange from her imagination? We can examine the typical assumptions, inferences, theories and hypotheses employed by three different categories of people, grouped according to their pre-existing beliefs about Cumorah.

Relative acceptance of what Lucy Mack Smith said

Assumption

All

Some

None

Lucy was correct because Cumorah is in New York.

Lucy was mistaken because Cumorah is not in New York.

Lucy was mistaken because Cumorah is imaginary.

Inferences and interpretations

All

Some

None

We infer that Lucy heard this directly from Joseph Smith, that Joseph heard it correctly in the first place, and that Lucy accurately reported what Joseph told her. The words speak for themselves; i.e., Moroni identified the hill where the plates were deposited as Cumorah.

This is not a direct quotation so we infer Lucy paraphrased what she heard or added anachronistic details years after the fact. She said “hill of Cumorah” which is not the same as the Hill Cumorah, so we interpret it to mean a hill “like” Cumorah, reminiscent of Cumorah, etc.

We infer that Lucy probably wanted to believe it, and wanted others to believe it, because she naturally trusted her own son. But there’s nothing believable about this account because resurrected beings don’t come to earth to convey messages.

Theory/explanation

All

Some

None

Because Lucy was generally a reliable witness, there is no reason to doubt her claim in this case. Even though Lucy related this 20 years after the fact, she had a good memory and she repeated the account many times during the lifetime of Joseph Smith and he never corrected or contradicted her. Lucy related a similar account about Cumorah that took place about 3 years later.

Although Lucy was generally a reliable witness, she was not in all cases. Lucy related this 20 years after the fact so she must have heard the Cumorah theory from someone other than Joseph Smith, but even if she heard it from Joseph, Joseph was speculating along with Oliver Cowdery.

Lucy was generally a reliable witness, but at best, Lucy is relating hearsay (what Joseph told her), so it’s not even admissible in court. Her belief in resurrected beings doesn’t make her belief a reality. Besides, even scholars who believe the Book of Mormon is “true” don’t accept what Lucy said here.

Hypothesis

All

Some

None

The actual Hill Cumorah is in western New York.

The actual Hill Cumorah is in southern Mexico or somewhere else.

Any hill Cumorah is fictional, whether it’s in New York or anywhere else.

Predictably, the concluding hypothesis confirms the beginning assumption held by each of the three groups. 

As we discussed previously, this is called “confirmation bias,” defined as a cognitive bias “that results from the tendency to process and analyze information in such a way that it supports one's preexisting ideas and convictions.”[4]

But that doesn’t matter because the FAITH model is not designed to produce a convergence of ideas. Instead, it solves for clarity, charity and understanding. 

To review:

Clarity. The FAITH model enables everyone to see exactly what are the assumptions, inferences and theories which lead to the hypothesis or conclusion. Often, it clarifies these elements for the proponent of a particular hypothesis as well.

With the “ancestry” of each hypothesis clearly spelled out, everyone can understand alternative working hypotheses. People can make informed choices without the confusion that typically results from argument and contention.

Charity. The FAITH model also promotes charity, meaning we assume everyone is acting in good faith and is sincere. Instead of speculating about possible ulterior motives, everyone can see exactly how others reached their conclusions.

Understanding. The FAITH model brings people together based on mutual understanding and respect without requiring agreement, adherence, or conformity to one particular outcome.

This approach is far beyond merely agreeing to disagree. Once people understand one another with clarity and charity, we can all work together without underlying suspicions, distrust, or animosity; i.e., we can have “no more contention.”

And we can work together for the common good despite (or even because of) our different worldviews.