Faith Crisis

[This post originally appeared as two separate blog posts at Ploni Almoni–Mr. So and So’s Mormon Blog. The two posts are redacted here for convenience.] 

“When Doubts and Questions Arise”

Hot off the press is the March 2015 Ensign.

Adam Kotter gets it right with his comments on how to healthily respond to a faith crisis:

“When Doubts and Questions Arise”

Incidentally, I just read these words from Elder John A. Widtsoe this evening.

Doubt of the right kind–––that is, honest questioning–––leads to faith. Such doubt impels men to inquiry which always opens the door to truth. The scientist in his laboratory, the explorer in distant parts, the prayerful man upon his knees–––these and all inquirers like them find truth. They learn some things that are known, others are not. They cease to doubt. . . . On the other hand, the stagnant doubter, one content with himself, unwilling to make the effort, to pay the price of discovery, inevitably reaches unbelief and miry darkness. His doubts grow like poisonous mushrooms in the dim shadows of his mental and spiritual chambers. At last, blind like the mole in his borrow, he usually substitutes ridicule for reason, and indolence for labor.

(John A. Widtsoe, “Is It Wrong to Doubt?” in Science and Your Faith in God [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1958], 241.)

While I’m at it, here are also some sage words from Joseph F. Merrill.

In these days there are so many false teachings, so much propaganda, so much shallowness and insincerity, so many appeals to self-interest by ambitious demagogues and others, that it behooves the truth-seeker to investigate all proposals and appeals that come to him in order that he may act wisely.

(Joseph F. Merrill, “The Dynamic God of Science,” in Science and Your Faith in God, 117.)

A key to successfully navigating a faith crisis is to never assume that you know enough about the topic you’re struggling with. If it’s plural marriage, the Book of Abraham, Book of Mormon historicity, or other issues in Church history, you can never study too much, but you can always study too little. In my experience, many individuals who resign their Church membership over these and other issues often do so after giving up too easily on the apologetic responses to the criticism, or not even knowing the responses in the first place! In many instances they read the critical material but don’t go any further. Or, if they are aware of the apologetic response, they often get it secondhand from critics who are, in reality, presenting little more than a straw man version of the apologetic response that distorts the real argument. (Exhibit A: the apparent inability of the denizens of the Ex-Mormon Subreddit to understand, much less accurately summarize, John A. Sorenson’s suggestion that “horse” served as a Nephite loan-shift for the indigenous American tapir. This, incidentally, has led to a bizarre obsession on the part of these ex-Mormons with the tapir that exhibits an amusing ignorance on their part.)

In short, to paraphrase Werner Heisenberg, “The first gulp from the glass of Mormon history will turn you into an ex-Mormon, but at the bottom of the glass faith in Joseph Smith’s divine calling is waiting for you.”

–––––––––––––––––––

“Answers to Common Questions”

If I may be perfectly frank, I have been disappointed in the quality of many of the articles printed in the Church’s magazines as of late. While I read the Ensign and the New Era every month, mostly to stay current on what’s trending in Mormon discourse, I usually find myself skimming over most articles. Rarely do I find articles that are substantive or that grab my attention. To my delight, the March 2015 New Era, the Church’s magazine for youth, does have one intriguing article that I thought would be worth highlighting.

Here are some “common questions” that an unnamed author the New Era thought important to provide brief responses to. Keep in mind that, per the New Era‘s primary readership, these are the sorts of questions more likely to be encountered by the Church’s youth (perhaps, for example, while walking down the hall in an American high school).

1. Why do you have other scriptures? Isn’t the Bible enough?

2. Mormon men have lots of wives, right?

3. Why are Mormons against gay people?

4. Are you really Christians or more like a cult?

5. Why does it matter what church you belong to? Doesn’t God love everyone?

6. Doesn’t scientific evidence prove that the Book of Mormon couldn’t possibly be true?

7. What happens in your temples, and why are you so secretive about it?

8. Why does your church send out young men and women to be missionaries?

9. Why don’t you believe in having sexual relationships until you’re married?

10. Do you all just blindly obey whatever you’re told?

11. How can you be sure what you believe is true?

I will encourage my readers to go see for themselves the answers provided to these questions. I do, however, wish to highlight a few remarks.

Concerning whether scientific evidence disproves the Book of Mormon, the article states:

The scientific evidence we have cannot prove or disprove the Book of Mormon. Archaeological or genetic research in the Americas, for instance, is ongoing and often raises more questions than it answers. So to draw absolute conclusions from it about the Book of Mormon (either for it or against it) is usually a bit of a stretch—and quite risky, since new evidence often comes along that refutes old conclusions.

This is, actually, a very astute and reasonable reply. Having taken at least three different archaeology classes in my undergraduate program, I have learned that making positive claims about the past based on negative evidence is a rather problematic. I have encountered, on a number of occasions, the useful adage “the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” in my reading of mainstream archaeology textbooks and papers. I have also encountered many wise and seasoned archaeologists warn against attempting to make a case for something on negative evidence. It’s a methodological pitfall that, unfortunately, many unwittingly seem to fall into.

Similarly, given what the archaeologist Mark Alan Wright has indicated about the excavation of pre-Columbian Mesoamerica, we can appreciate that this sentiment is doubly true for the Book of Mormon.

Because of the extraordinarily diverse cultural landscape and the challenges of interpreting the archaeological record, scholars debate the precise chronologies, spheres of influence, and cultural boundaries of Mesoamerica. Literally thousands of archaeological sites dot the Mesoamerican landscape, the vast majority of which we know virtually nothing about, other than their locations. In the Maya area alone are approximately six thousand known sites, of which fewer than fifty have undergone systematic archaeological excavation.

. . .

Thanks to advances in satellite imaging, we have been able to identify over 6,000 sites in the Maya area alone, each composed of dozens, if not hundreds, of buildings. Of these thousands of known sites, each is unique in one way or another. From those polities whose artistic programs and hieroglyphic inscriptions have survived the ravages of time, we have discovered that each city worshipped its own unique pantheon of gods, typically a blending of pancultural deities with locally significant patron gods.

(Mark Alan Wright, “The Cultural Tapestry of Mesoamerica,” Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture 22/2 [2013]: 4, 21; online here.)

But more important, attacks against the Book of Mormon on scientific grounds are usually based on faulty assumptions about what the book claims to be. For instance, it does not claim to be a record of the ancestors of all of the native peoples across the entire Western Hemisphere, nor does it claim that the people described in it were the first or only people inhabiting the area described in it. And yet, many scientific criticisms seem to assume that the book claims exactly these things.

Again, this is an excellent point. As Hugh Nibley wryly observed in 1967, “The normal way of dealing with the Book of Mormon ‘scientifically’ has been first to attribute to the Book of Mormon something it did not say, and then to refute the claim by scientific statements that have not been proven.” (Since Cumorah, 2nd ed. [Provo: FARMS, 1981], 214.)

Furthermore, this comment from the New Era is keeping in line with the Church’s recent Gospel Topics essay on the Book of Mormon and DNA studies:

[This piece originally appeared at LDS.net and is reposted here with permission.]

My mother is a dish-collector of sorts. Due to the large size of our family and her limited budget, her treasure hunts mainly consisted of browsing the neighborhood yard sales. There wasn’t a matching set of dishes in our cupboard but rather a collection of others’ surplus that became my mother’s gems.

One evening a close friend stopped by while we were eating dinner. He noted the pink plate and mentioned that it was valuable, and I shouldn’t be eating on it. And with that, my days of elegant dining ended.

After a careful washing, my dish was placed in the china cabinet with others deserving such honor. My mother took our friend’s proclamation at face value; the dish was far too precious to be used as a child’s dinner plate.

I can’t say I ever felt the same way about our friend. At dinner as I looked down at a plate that was not as lovely as the one to which I was accustomed, I resented the unsolicited comments on the value of our dinnerware. Looking at the plate in the china cabinet didn’t give me nearly the same pleasure as actually using it had.

About ten years ago my mother gave me the pink plate. “Here,” she said, “I saved this for you.” For the first time as an adult, I closely inspected the beloved plate. There were no markings identifying a manufacturer, which would aid in revealing its origins.

“So,” I asked my mother, “Why did our friend think this plate was so valuable?” She responded by describing features with which I was already familiar: “It is made of pink glass, and it is etched with those pretty flowers.”

With the tools available to me on the Internet, I decided to do a little research of my own. After checking several sources, I found I could purchase a set of five new dishes pretty much identical to the one I now housed in my cupboard for about ten dollars. The dish had intrinsic value, but its monetary value was nominal.

My mother had taken her friend’s declaration without entertaining an ounce of skepticism despite the fact he had no special training in evaluating the quality of dinnerware. She accepted what she heard as truth simply because it had been uttered, was plausible, and was even enticing. Perhaps the dish really was worth a bit of money.

Accepting Truth

A bit of skepticism is not a bad thing. After all, it is through questioning that the greatest discoveries are often made. Earnest truth seeking often encourages us to question that which we are told, which results in acquiring more complete and accurate information. It is unfortunate our society often conditions us to do the opposite.

Instilled at a young age to accept words spoken from those with the stamp of authority, we become accustomed to generally trusting that which others promote as truth. This authority is often established by a cursory examination of the fact giver’s credentials, such as age, profession, personal relationship, and ecclesiastical position.

This is not to say that our society has conditioned us to be consistently duped. Most justifiably consider a textbook a more accurate source of information than a grocery store tabloid magazine. But how many times have we unquestionably taken as truth the word of tour guides—certainly they have been briefed; accepted some gossip about a neighbor—after all their husbands work together; or a lecture in a Social Studies class—that master’s degree in history must account for something. It seems the bar for establishing a source of authority may be too low at times.

This social conditioning is especially detrimental with the advent of the Internet. Anyone can say anything at any time, but it doesn’t mean it is true. And with a click of the mouse, that information is made available to the world. The more the information is accessed, the more credence is attributed to it, creating what I refer to as the “Search Engine Fallacy.” A source is assumed authoritative simply because it has been frequently viewed.

Wisdom from Antiquity

There is an oft-repeated quote by Aristotle declaring: “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” In our quest for truth, it may be wise to ponder an idea without immediately accepting it. Instead weigh the facts carefully before making a decision and explore the reasoning behind a conclusion.

The flip side of this statement is true as well. It is important to consider an opinion before dismissing it entirely. Even arguments that result in faulty conclusions usually contain some bit of truth. One may entertain a thought that is alien to one’s normal way of thinking and after careful study and contemplation find it worthy of embracing.

This quote urges truth seekers to approach ideas with an open mind and weigh their merits carefully through study and examination; trying best to understand the concepts, but in the end, there is no need to agree with them.

Authentic vs. Counterfeit

This quote, which is easily found on the Internet, has been used in numerous blogs, college papers, and inspirational speeches over the years. A simple search on a popular Internet engine will result in hundreds of hits. It is a great quote: pithy, thought provoking, and easily understood. But I am not confident Aristotle actually coined the phrase. In fact, I am pretty sure he did not; if Aristotle always wrote so clearly, philosophy classes might be more popular.

The closest reference to a quote by Aristotle resembling this familiar rendition is found in his book Nicomachean Ethics: “It is the mark of an educated man to look for precision in each class of things just so far as the nature of the subject admits; it is evidently equally foolish to accept probable reasoning from a mathematician and to demand from a rhetorician scientific proofs.”

The essence of the quote is similar to its twentieth-century update, but the subtle differences impart nuances of meaning much deeper than its counterfeit cousin. Both quotes are worthy of contemplation, but only one is authentic and is in truth the voice of Aristotle.

Comparing the two quotes brings forth meaning in the authentic that is lost in the condensation. Aristotle urges one to “look for precision in each class of things just so far as the nature of the subject admits.” Constraints such as lack of historical data and insufficiencies in scientific knowledge limit our ability to determine the nature of truth, but these resources and others ought to be exhausted before accepting the accuracy of any conclusions.

Accepting Uncertainty and Determining Truth

But unless a thing is witnessed, can its reality ever be established with certainty? And if another has not had that same witness, can they assuredly take another’s word as a witness?

Aristotle brings up a second point that addresses these questions of uncertainty and where to turn for resolution: “it is evidently equally foolish to accept probable reasoning from a mathematician and to demand from a rhetorician scientific proofs.”

Similarly, those things that are historical are best obtained from personally studying history and the work of historians; those things that are spiritual are best obtained through spiritual means, whether that be through study of secular and religious sources, prayer, spiritual gifts, or slowly over time.

Truth seekers will undoubtedly encounter information with which they are either unfamiliar or uncomfortable. I encourage them to test Aristotle’s authentic dictate. For those things which are disconcerting, study them out “with precision . . . so far as the nature of the subject admits,” and only after doing so, make a decision whether to accept or reject them as truth.

When we accept as truth that which is proposed by another without seeking a knowledge of that truth ourselves, we not only risk exiling a cherished dish to the china cabinet but also perpetuating falsehoods by relying on words simply put forth rather than words that represent truth.