🤔 Doubts and Truth¶
Estimated time to read: 9 minutes
This is a transcript of these quotes from various church leaders concerning doubts & truth, along with some of my responses and comments.
This is a collection of quotes and excerpts from LDS leadership in early 2010s (with one exception) concerning doubts.
I’ll copy them here and offer some thoughts. Not comprehensive or definitive, but it’s what I’ve got.
Obedience Brings Blessings¶
There is no need for you or for me, in this enlightened age when the fulness of the gospel has been restored, to sail uncharted seas or to travel unmarked roads in search of truth. A loving Heavenly Father has plotted our course and provided an unfailing guide- even obedience. A knowledge of truth and the answers to our greatest questions come to us as we are obedient to the commandments of God.
— Thomas S. Monson, “Obedience Brings Blessings,” Ensign or Liahona, May 2013
This sounds like we’re being discouraged from exploring outside the beaten path. Don’t look for any information outside of what we’ve approved to tell you. Also don't think too much about what a "blessing" is.
Doubt Your Doubts¶
My dear friends—please, first doubt your doubts before you doubt your faith. We must never allow doubt to hold us prisoner and keep us from the divine love, peace, and gifts that come through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
— Dieter F. Uchtdorf, “Come, Join with Us,” Ensign or Liahona, Nov. 2013
I really take issue with this.
This is a divinely appointed prophet of God telling us to lean into cognitive bias.
Confirmation Bias: Inclination for information that backs what you already believe. I will acknowledge that I am 100% doing this. I’m observing that Uchtdorf is telling us to do it, but in the other direction
Congruence bias: Inclination to test initial hypothesis, neglecting any alternative hypotheses. (BoM is true, so I will incline to look for information to back that up, and refuse to look for information that could challenge that initial idea.)
Primacy effect: Bias for information that you heard first, discounting information you hear later. Flip this around: If any investigator heard “god isn’t real” and then encounters LDS missionaries, this bias would prevent any conversion. Missionaries do encounter this- meet a catholic who insists their belief is true because they grew up with it, and internalized it first.
What Is Truth?¶
This section is numerous quotes from the same discourse by Uchtdorf:
Satan is the great deceiver, ‘the accuser of [the] brethren’ [Revelation 12:10], the father of all lies [see John 8:44], who continually seeks to deceive that he might overthrow us [D&C 50:3]. . . .
Building the context that there is good information and bad information. Appeal to authority via scripture.
For those who already embrace the truth, his primary strategy is to spread the seeds of doubt. For example, he has caused many members of the Church to stumble when they discover information about the Church that seems to contradict what they had learned previously.
Connecting the prior context to a modern application.
Seems pretty broad and generic. Are we allowed to encounter information irrespective of an evil externality? What’s satan’s stance on moral neutrality, or middle ground?
“He has caused members to stumble when they discover information.” So… the information isn’t the problem, it’s Satan? What is the prophetic declaration here? Also note use of passive voice.
If you experience such a moment, remember that in this age of information there are many who create doubt about anything and everything, at any time and every place. . . .
That sounds about right. Don’t act like the LDS church isn’t part of this. You create doubt about other faiths, create doubt about historicity when it doesn’t fit narrative. You create doubt about electroshock therapy, you create doubt about Lamanite placement program giving marginalized minors to sex offenders. You definitely create doubt about financial decisions and tithing.
That said, yes, one can find information to back up any belief or ideology. This is not wrong. Don’t shift that blame away from yourself.
. . . And it is always good to keep in mind that just because something is printed on paper, appears on the Internet, is frequently repeated, or has a powerful group of followers doesn’t make it true.
Sometimes untrue claims or information are presented in such a way that they appear quite credible. . . .
Flip that around.
The LDS church has printed, published online, and frequently repeats a lot of information. That does not make it true. How, then, would we discern truth? Warm fuzzies from the holy spirit? We don't have a better method without such a vast margin of error?
This isn’t directly related, but appeals to sensibilities and rhetoric is how mass media operates. News outlets can tell you something outright stupid and disprovable, but with such confidence and poise that listeners can take it at face value. This point supports both sides of the argument, for and against LDS beliefs. Anti-LDS will present compelling info. LDS will also present compelling info. Moot point.
. . . What may seem contradictory now may be perfectly understandable as we search for and receive more trustworthy information.
— What Is Truth?, Dieter F. Uchtdorf, CES Devotional, Jan. 13, 2013
That sounds about right. It’s not really a defense, but advice to let the info settle before jumping to a conclusion. Dallin H Oaks did not do this before defending the salamander letters.
Speaking of Oaks…
As He Thinketh in His Heart¶
When we begin by measuring modern practices and proposals against what we know of God’s plan and the premises given in the word of God and the teachings of His living prophets, . . . we know that this puts us on safe ground eternally.
— As He Thinketh in His Heart, Dallin H. Oaks, evening with Elder Dallin H. Oaks, Feb. 8, 2013
What is he trying to say? Reject modernity because God is ancient and eternal? Appeal to ancient wisdom or tradition?
"When we measure modern practices against God’s prophets teachings” doesn’t really make sense to me. What does being “[put] on safe ground eternally” mean?
I’m pretty confused, this sounds vague enough to be a platitude.
Expanded ellipsis:
“. . . the word of God and the teachings of His living prophets, we must anticipate that our conclusions will differ from persons who do not think in that way. But we are firm in this because we know that this puts us on safe ground, eternally. Many others will not agree, but our explanation of why we think in this way will give others a better understanding of our positions.”*
Lord, I Believe¶
In moments of fear or doubt or troubling times, hold the ground you have already won, even if that ground is limited. . . . When those moments come and issues surface, the resolution of which is not immediately forthcoming, hold fast to what you already know and stand strong until additional knowledge comes.
— Lord, I Believe, Jeffrey R. Holland, Ensign or Liahona, May 2013
See the link for the full text and expanded ellipsis.
It sounds awfully reminiscent of Uchtdorf’s good advice to not jump to a conclusion immediately.
“Stand strong until additional knowledge comes” does not sound like good advice. How long have we been awaiting the long-promised 116 BoM pages? LDS Church hasn’t published their financial documents since 1960. Should I keep waiting for that issue to get resolved? We’re not getting a lot of new revelation, aside from logo changes and trying to stop saying “Mormon”. We’re getting revised lesson plans and manuals. That’s not really adding new knowledge. Sounds like we’re being told to just shelf our concerns and focus on what seems comfortable. When will additional knowledge come, Holland?
Joseph Smith¶
We might remind the sincere inquirer that Internet information does not have a ‘truth’ filter. Some information, no matter how convincing, is simply not true.
— Joseph Smith, Neil L Andersen Ensign or Liahona, Nov. 2014
Yeah, we might.
Indeed disinformation exists. Does it only exist outside of LDS teachings, or can there be partial truths being taught within it as well?
A Pattern for Learning Spiritual Things¶
Answers to spiritual questions are given to individuals who don’t harden their hearts; who ask in faith, believing they will receive; and who diligently keep the commandments.
— A Pattern for Learning Spiritual Things, Paul V. Johnson, CES address to religious educators, Aug. 7, 2012
See mentions of cognitive biases. Promising answers only to people “receptive” to them sounds like you already have a conclusion in mind, and will interpret any sign as confirmation of that conclusion. Diligently keeping the commandments shouldn’t be a prerequisite for understanding them. That is a very cult-like mentality. Just obey without question, and it will eventually make sense.
All Hell is Moved¶
Studying the Church … through the eyes of its defectors [is] like interviewing Judas to understand Jesus.
— All Hell Is Moved, Neal A. Maxwell, BYU Devotional, Nov. 8, 1977
See the link for the full text and expanded ellipsis.
Full quote:
“Some insist upon studying the Church only through the eyes of its defectors—like interviewing Judas to understand Jesus. Defectors always tell us more about themselves than about that from which they have departed.”
That excluded sentence is deflecting the criticism onto the questioning individuals. Not a good look. This is like asserting "we'll never understand Jonestown, because the only people who experienced it defected!" "We have no way of really knowing The Beatles. Ringo Starr is still alive, yes, but the group has disbanded, so we can't ask him anything."
Using ellipsis to exclude the word “only” shouldn’t be overlooked. True, if you only read anti-LDS sentiments, you’ll get grossly skewed information. What does it say when LDS leadership damns itself through its own teachings, though?