I just finished reading a great book called Being Wrong: Adventures in the Margin of Error. This book talks about the pitfalls of being wrong as well as how to do a better job at avoiding spectacular mistakes.
Here are a few tips to avoiding error that the book discussed and how they help us to avoid error:
- Embrace Doubt. The only way to avoid big blunders is to embrace your doubts, at least mentally. The book does not advocate letting your doubts consume you, give you analysis paralysis or cause you to become totally wishy-washy. But exploring why you doubt when you doubt can be a healthy way to understand your actual beliefs and their limitations. As Descartes discovered, at the bottom of all beliefs is an unfounded assumption (not because it is wrong, just that it has no actual foundation). IOW, whether we believe it or not, we are all acting on faith to some extent. Church example: We are told to “ask and ye shall receive,” and in order to ask, you have to have doubt. Also, our entire church came about because a boy had doubts, so doubts can’t be that scary!
- Acknowledge Fallibility. When we fail to acknowledge our own fallibility, we become arrogant, insufferable, and uncorrectable. When we fail to acknowledge another’s fallibility, we end up defending the indefensible. When we mistake authority for truth, authority will inevitably err and fail us from time to time. Church example: A funny saying we often hear is that “Catholics are told the pope is infallible, and none of them believe it; Mormons are told the prophets are fallible, and none of them believe it.” We should believe it, since it’s not doctrine that they are infallible, 14 Fundamentals notwithstanding.
- Have a Sense of Humor. Humor is very closely linked to both error and truth. In royal courts, jesters were allowed to speak truths that were considered too dangerous to be admitted. As the saying goes, there’s truth in all jest. Having a sense of humor about ourselves and our assertions also helps us to avoid error by remaining humble. If you can laugh at yourself, you can acknowledge your mistakes and not find them threatening. Church example: Many of our GC talks include humor and include self-deprecating stories.
- Seek Diverse Perspectives. Erroneous ideas are reinforced by several very powerful factors: 1) we tend to ignore (to the point of not even seeing it) evidence that contradicts our assertions, 2) we stockpile evidence that confirms our beliefs and give it extra weight, and 3) we associate with like-minded individuals who reinforce our views. By seeking out views that differ from our own, we can become exposed to the flaws in our own thinking. This should not be simply trading one group’s influence for another’s. Diverse perspectives can expose us to new evidence that we couldn’t see previously, can bring our own evidence under more scrutiny, and can broaden our thinking. Church example: Interfaith efforts expose us to outside perspectives as does serving in our communities. Deliberately soliciting female minority input in leaderships councils also helps as does building non-US leadership (and non-Utah leadership) into the ranks of the GAs.
Based on this list, I’m inclined to think that religion in general, including the LDS church, is probably pretty prone to error. While we do OK in some ways, we are especially vulnerable to error when we fight against these approaches. For example, here’s what “fighting against these” might look like:
- Stamp out Doubt. If we view doubt as a negative or even a character flaw, it’s difficult to be sufficiently critical about our own assumptions to avoid error. Voltaire said, “Doubt is uncomfortable; certainty is ridiculous.” Another proverb states: “Any belief worth having must survive doubt.” History shows that absolute certainty is the most direct path to error. Church example: The trend toward using “know” instead of believe, and many talks that refer to the pitfalls of doubt or that equate all doubt with apostasy.
- Imply Infallibility. Thomas Jefferson said, “The wise know too well their weakness to assume infallibility; and he who knows most knows best how little he knows.” When we believe ourselves to be infallible or fail to admit mistakes to ourselves or to others, or when we make the cost of mistakes too high to admit, we are more likely to err (because the cost of erring is too high). Church example: Lists like the 14 Fundamentals, songs like “Follow the Prophet” and unqualified admonishments to “follow the brethren”.
- Outlaw Humor. When we cease to laugh at ourselves and to see the paradoxes in our own beliefs or when we consider many things to be too important to laugh about, we are bound to make mistakes. Being puffed up with our own importance puts us in the position of the Emporer in the fable who was fooled into parading through town naked. He too believed he was above approach. Church example: People who simply have no sense of humor about themselves or fail to see the ridiculous in some of our Mormon customs and practices. Casting a wide net in what is “too holy” to be laughed at. Equating laughter with sin.
- Marginalize Diverse Perspectives. When we consider those whose views differ from our own to be completely misled or evil or foolish, we dismiss the views they hold and do not examine our own assumptions more closely. Church example: Check out the centerfold in the General Conference edition of the Ensign. Excluding female perspectives, being Ameri-centric or Utah-centric in our thinking, and lack of non-US and minority leadership. Making war with “the world” and “worldly perspectives” or labeling differing views as originating with Satan.
Despite these suggestions, another key message of the book was that we will still make mistakes, and we need to take the leap of faith to act, even when we are uncertain. We can’t be so stymied by doubt that we avoid doing anything. Life is about risks, about acting as if we know what we are doing even when we don’t really.
So what do you think about avoiding error? Which of these do you personally have a hard time avoiding? Do you think these are good tips to reduce the magnitude and impact of our errors? Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
On my mission we had the Hill Cumorah Pageant. Part of that was the classes we taught between practices, and a big section of that was quotes and such by Joseph Smith talking about his own fallibility.
In a smaller church, where everyone knows each others foibles, I think it is an easier vision to maintain.
There is something to be said about admitting when you have been wrong. In Fort Worth a lady was being given change back after having given him a $20.00 bill or so she thought. She insisted that the clerk had given her incorrect change and she started arguing with him and hitting him. She went smugly back to her car and looked in her purse there was the $20.00 she thought she had given him. Talk about eating crow. This was a news story awhile back.
Great post! Now if only Kathryn Schulz could be quoted in General Conference as C.S. Lewis once was.
Good post. However, I would use the word “question” instead of “doubt”. To question is to build faith through the acquisition of further knowledge. To doubt is to exclude faith since doubt does not lead to seeking further knowledge as readily. In other words, doubting- in and off itself – more easily leads to apathy.
Michael:
I think it’s semantics and probability. In my mind, “question” means you’re not really sure about something, but think it’s likely true. “Doubt” means you’re not really sure about something, but think it’s likely NOT true.
And more than whether you “question” or “doubt” something, I think the thing that leads towards or away from apathy is more the weight of the answer. Something trivial might not get any interest, regardless. Something vitally important might get A LOT of interest, even if you think it’s very likely false.
A while back I had a conversation with a seminary and institute teacher about doubt and what I took away from it was that it was OK as long as you were trying to resolve it in favor of the church. If not it was sin. The problem for me is that with doubt comes the realization that there is likely no satisfying answer or resolution to the question. That it turns changes everything about how you function in and relate to the church. Some seem to take pride in being able to say that it doesn’t matter but to me it does.
Personally, I think question and doubt are roughly interchangeable. But the mental process (per the book) needs to be more rigorous than simply accepting on faith and feeling if one wishes to avoid error.
Very nice post. It strikes me as a good application of Joseph’s comment that “By proving contraries, truth [i.e. knowledge of things as they are, as they were, and as they are to come] is made manifest [progressively, not all at once].”
Several years ago, during a visit to the FARMS offices, I heard Shirley Ricks comment that “Some people have their testimonies on too tight.” On the other side, there are those I’ve described as demonstrating “spiritual masochism”, so focused on proving that they can face problems without flinching that they ignore solutions.
Balance and perspective make a better soil in which to experiment upon and nourish the word. Interesting stuff grows.
Kevin Christensen
Pittsburgh, PA
“It strikes me as a good application of Joseph’s comment that “By proving contraries, truth [i.e. knowledge of things as they are, as they were, and as they are to come] is made manifest [progressively, not all at once].” ”
I’ve never understood this but have seen it quoted many times. If someone could explain it, I’d appreciate it.
GB:
You said, “A while back I had a conversation with a seminary and institute teacher about doubt and what I took away from it was that it was OK as long as you were trying to resolve it in favor of the church…”
I might take exception to that comment. First, it seems to be built off a premise that suggests that seminary and institute teachers are some sort of authority, or that their word bears more weight then the average member wherever they may be. Second, it seems to suggest doubt is only good if we’re trying to resolve an issue in favor of the church. I don’t think we need to resolve any issues in favor or in disfavor with the church. I think we need to resolve issues in favor of the truth.
Truth is more important than an institution or organization to whom we might think we “belong” to. If you were to build some hierarchy of importance, truth would necessarily hold sway over a church, even though that church may claim to hold truth, or invite to hold all truth. Just my opinion.
With that being said, I enjoyed the examples given. I do think our lexicon is problematic for those in the doubting or questioning modes. With nearly every testimony saying that someone “knows” for sure something is true, or with “every fiber of their being,” or whatever it might be, it creates further discord with people who simply don’t know and recognize that fact. Perhaps that’s the “faking” someone mentioned on another post here – but the use of words ultimately means something, and I find it hard to believe that so many people really “KNOW” some of the things they say are true.
And then to tell our kids, when they’re bearing their testimonies, that they “know” something is even more bizarre.
For the Eugene England essay that introduced me to the quote on “proving contraries” see
http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/dialogues/chapter1.htm#joseph
Joseph wrote it as a comment on the format of the book for which he wrote the Wentworth Letter, which included chapters by believers of different sects, each telling their own story from their own perspective.
I once presented on LDS examples of what happens when there are no contraries (either an all negative or all positive approach) or when one tries to survey opposing views with no mode of evaluating claims that is not self referential, and therefore, no “proving” that points one way over another. Pretty sad, at either extreme. Truth, then, is not made manifest.
Kevin Christensen
Pittsburgh, PA
Hawkgrrl:
How do you avoid error? You don’t. It’s the human condition. It would be nice to avoid it but it’s not gonna happen.
HG, nice post. I found myself trying to sort out, however, whether you’re addressing an institutional “we” or each of us as individuals.
Clearly embracing doubt (or questions), acknowledging fallibility, allowing for self-deprecating humor and seeking diverse answers are signs of humility, a quality we (individually and institutionally) would do well to cultivate.
Of course for TBMs like me, when we believe there is a Source of Truth (God), we want to discover Him wherever He is. And we TBMs believe he’ll reveal himself through prophets. So we are uncomfortable sometimes insisting on institutional humility in the same way we might hope for individual humility.
I have often felt that Joseph’s statement about proving contraries is most appropriate when discussing same-sex attraction.
If Celestial marriage is the pinnacle of the Restored Gospel and a necessary ordinance for the highest form of exaltation then why are some born with an orientation that precludes inclusion into this ordinance through no choice of their own.
The law of Restoration spoken of in the Book of Mormon tells us that our personality, strengths, weaknesses, orientation, tendencies and attributes are to be fully restored upon being resurrected. Except for the perfection of physical deficiencies or debilitating diseases, we are not suddenly transformed mentally or emotionally into a different being in the next life.
So how does same-sex attraction fit into the Gospel since it is not a physical deficiency or disease? It is a perfect example of needing to prove contraries to arrive at the truth.
Paul,
Nowhere in the Restored Gospel does it limit the revelation of Christ only through prophets. He reveals His will and His Being to prophets but they are not the only channel He uses. I think that is the whole point of item #4 in the original post.
As a TBM I believe that the prophet speaks for the Lord and is the head of His Church on earth. But eternal truth surrounds us everywhere and is witnessed by the Holy Ghost to our souls. We must seek truth in all corners of existence.
15 Michael, certainly the Lord may reveal Himself however He likes, and the training on the CHI confirmed what you are saying, that inspiration can come to anyone. ‘
I did not mean to suggest we should not seek diverse sources of truth because we have a prophet. What I meant to suggest is that the four points are more easy for me to apply to myself than to the church as a whole.
Hmm, the JS quote on proving contraries is fascinating. I had always assumed it to mean something I personally believe, which is that truth is like an onion, and each layer contradicts the previous one. Often something is true and so is its opposite. Opposites build on one another rather than cancelling out.
Paul – I think you can view these traits as institutional on some level, but institutional only in the sense that an organization comprises of individuals. So in your example, you mention a belief in prophets receiving truth from God and sharing it with us. If you re-look at this list as if you were the one in the role of prophet, the list may apply differently than it does to you now. I think the key is not to abdicate responsibility for what we believe and our choices. The other person we see as having more responsibility is also fallible, and we cannot know how much scrutiny s/he has applied. I am slightly skeptical on the occasions when prophetic guidance merely coincides with conventional wisdom of a certain age group. I say slightly skeptical because I’m not saying I believe it’s obviously wrong if it does, just that it gives pause about the source.
I think institutional humility would be a natural characteristic of the Lord’s Church. I think of Buddhism or the Amish or Quakerism.
A way of avoiding one major avenue of error is that the more you desire to believe something, the more skeptical you ought to be of it.
#10, Tom: For that reason I try to be pretty careful when using the word “know” in bearing testimony. Basically, only those things that the Holy Ghost has specifically told me gets put in that category. So, I know God lives, Jesus is the Christ, and Joseph Smith was a prophet of God who saw the First Vision, but I don’t know whether brothers Brigham to Harold were prophets because the Holy Ghost has never told me anything about them. But then I find myself reading brother Spencer’s words in a foreign tongue (a language I didn’t even know) and the Spirit both conveys the meaning of the words to me and testifies of their veracity. Later, the Spirit testifies that brother Ezra is a prophet of God. Later, that brother Howard is an “apostle.” But brother Gordon and brother Thomas, well, I’ve got no idea whether they are/were prophets. And the list goes on and on for individual aspects of the gospel, for some things I’ve received a witness, for others I haven’t. I think LDS just tend to apply any witness they receive from the Spirit of any portion of the gospel or of any individual in the gospel to the entire thing or organization. Not me, though. I try to stay specific to what exactly the Spirit told me.
Paul: You said “Of course for TBMs like me, when we believe there is a Source of Truth (God), we want to discover Him wherever He is. And we TBMs believe he’ll reveal himself through prophets.” There was a pretty good quote in the book about this:
“Instead of trusting a piece of information because we have vetted a source, we trust a source, and therefore accept its information.” The book quotes Avishai Margalit who said: “It is not the case that I am caught in a web of beliefs . . . rather, I am caught in a network of witnesses.”
20: “I think LDS just tend to apply any witness they receive from the Spirit of any portion of the gospel or of any individual in the gospel to the entire thing or organization.” LDSA, I thought your comment was spot on until you got to this quoted line. It seems pretty presumptuous to me that you understand what’s going on in the heads of all other (or even most other) members of the church.
I think your personal experience is unassailable, and I think there’s great merit to your approach.
21: Interesting quotation, and I wonder if that does accurately describe people’s experience. I, for one, tend to trust what the prophet says even before I understand it (or until I understand it) just because it has worked for me in the past. So I suppose it does apply to me.
But of course we do have the oppotunity to vet that information though our own spiritual witness, as LDSA describes in #20. I also can point to some specific instances where that witness has come to me to confirm the faith that I have exhibited.
Hawk, Great Post! Never read the book, but those have pretty much been my guiding principles since I joined the Church. I find doubt to be a good thing and a very useful thing for me. Some folks are afraid of the word and what it might mean to them were they to express any measure of doubt.
“I think institutional humility would be a natural characteristic of the Lord’s Church.”
We could use a bit more of this in the Church. I think we might have it, it just never sounds like we do.
Paul 22 – so when you look at the 4 ways to avoid error, considering prophetic counsel can be #4 – seeking diverse perspectives. I believe it was Joe Spencer at Feast Upon the Word Blog who said that the word of God should be provocative or else it’s only as good as our own conscience or us on a good day. If we don’t find it diverse from our own perspective, what’s the point? Now, having said that, I would hope that the prophet can also identify the difference between his own views and those of the Lord. Easier to do when the Lord’s views contradict our own. Nearly impossible to sort out if we happen to be in agreement.
hawkgrrrl on November 23, 2010 at 12:52 PM
“Hmm, the JS quote on proving contraries is fascinating. I had always assumed it to mean something I personally believe, which is that truth is like an onion, and each layer contradicts the previous one. Often something is true and so is its opposite. Opposites build on one another rather than cancelling out.”
The JS quote has made more sense since reading the reference Kevin Christensen gave and substituting “test” for prove but the reference to oposites building rather than cancelling I still don’t quite get. If you’ve an example, I’d be grateful.
#22 Paul, pretty much every LDS I have ever talked to about their testimony has given me the “Book of Mormon is true therefore the entire church is true” testimony. That has been my experience, what’s yours?
having a sense of humor is a highly underrated aspect of being a decent human being in my opinion.
#26 — Many people do start from that position. And I read that: ‘I have a testimony of the Book of Mormon, therefore I have faith that everything else is true.’ I may be more charitable than I should be in that assumption, but it’s what I do.
My own experience is that early “truths” or “witnesses” allowed me to accept other things on faith, and as I’ve followed counsel I’ve also found it to be true (see John 7:17).
I blogged earlier this week about a talk I heard at stake conference last weekend. Our visiting authority, Elder Ringwood of the 70, suggested that the power of our testimony is what motivates us to do things in the church, like attend, magnify callings, etc. I have always assumed that it was the power of faith that did those things, and so I had no trouble connecting acting on faith and acting on testimony.
But your earlier comment makes clear that you draw a distinction and I don’t see an issue with that, either.
My own personal practice is not to bear witness of things that I have not felt confirmed through spiritual experience. That said, I’ve never had a vision, so my “knowledge” is all based on faith — faith in what I interpret to be spiritual experiences and faith in my prior experiences that have helped shape how I interpret those spiritual manifestations.
26 — as a follow-up to my comment #28, I should also point out that I’ve always personally struggled with the ‘the B o M is true, therefore it’s all true’ approach, mostly because my testimony is more nuanced and more complex. I have not applied it to my own testimony. But if it works for someone else, I don’t have a problem with that.
Paul,
I appreciate greatly the difference you are so clearly articulating. I am a convert to the church and was truly converted to the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and the Restoration of the Gospel by Brother Joseph. However, as a gay man I have been forced to separate that testimony entirely from the other counsel and teachings of the Brethren and of general Church practices.
When I was first dealing with this issue at BYU back in the ’80s as a new convert and innocent of Church culture, I was counseled many times to spend more time with the sisters of the ward and to make an effort to date. I was told that the feelings would go away and that I would be able to marry and raise up a posterity.
However, it never felt right for me to deceive a woman in such a manner. I knew my feelings were not chosen and that there was something deeper going on. I am glad that I did not listen to the counsel I was given.
When I was excommunicated in 1995 for coming out to my Bishop after a mental breakdown (yes, I was excommunicated for just coming out – I know it is hard to believe) I never lost my testimony of the Book of Mormon and of the Restoration. But I did learn a hard lesson on separating the Church from the Gospel.
I was re-baptized in 2005 after I made a strong effort to reconcile my orientation with my belief in the Saviour. As the only member in my large Irish Catholic family, I had a duty to bind together the generations in the Temple of the Lord. I am now at peace with my place in the Plan of Salvation. Never again will I take upon faith the counsel or general cultural practices of the Church or Brethren. I will always seek a full confirmation from the Spirit with a clear understanding which does not negate reason. I will keep my sanity by maintaining a strong circle of friends outside the Church and by not denying the blessings of being gay.
Paul + LDSA:
In a recent EQ meeting where I questioned the logic behind the “we’re told the prophet will never lead us astray” argument, one middle aged gentleman responded as such (paraphrased):
“I know that the prophet is called of God, therefore I know every calling in the church is called of God. It is our duty to follow these men.”
Something to that effect. I think you/we underestimate the hold the “if such and such is true, the rest is true” mantra has on people. It’s even in various general conference talks like this one from then Elder Hinckley, which eventually made it into the Sunday School manuals we use:
“If the Book of Mormon is true, then Jesus is the Son of God…If the Book of Mormon is true, then Jesus is verily our Redeemer, the Savior of the world…If the Book of Mormon is true, then America is a choice land…If the Book of Mormon is true, Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God…If this book is true, [then president] Ezra Taft Benson is a prophet…If the Book of Mormon is true, the Church is true…If the Book of Mormon is true, the Bible is true.”
Or this from then President Benson:
“Therefore, the only problem the objector has to resolve for himself is whether the Book of Mormon is true. For if the Book of Mormon is true, then Jesus is the Christ, Joseph Smith was His prophet, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true, and it is being led today by a prophet receiving revelation.”
Point is, regardless of whether we individually disagree with it, it’s a teaching that’s made the rounds more than once from “official” sources and been reinforced from various pulpits via satellite transmission. FWIW.
31: Fair point. It has been taught. I also have friends who say the words in a similar way. The logical leap from one statement to the next is, in the end, a leap of faith. Hence my comment in #28.
30: Michael, I admire your being able to seek and find the confirmation you do. And I appreciate your need to do it.
Michael – thanks for sharing that experience. What an amazing story and life lesson!
Paul – similar to you, I think that we can gain from building faith on faith. To me, the quotes about it all being true or all false just don’t resonate; it sounds like earmarks on a piece of legislation – linking something weaker (or in this case untested) to something stronger.
To me, faith is practical. It works for me when I need it to work. It gives me more confidence in my decisions. It helps me clear my head. But I don’t delude myself into thinking that it makes it all correct or literally accurate. The source is still potentially biased and filtered, as am I.