The definition of faith is “1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something. 2. strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.”
Appeal to authority is a form of unreliable argument used to dismiss contrary evidence by overlooking errors in judgment, bias, dishonestly or groupthink made by those in authority. Thus, appeal to authority is not a reliable argument for establishing facts.
Yet, appeal to authority and faith can be nearly synonymous when we are talking about testimony development (relying on the testimony of parents and leaders), commandments and obedience (especially when we don’t have a logical rationale for the command), and receiving confirmation of counsel given by leaders (pray until you agree).
Nearly every argument regarding church practices devolves into an appeal to authority when logic fails. Mental gymnastics may be employed to resolve the cognitive dissonance between faith and contrary evidence.
When we have doubts, we are told to rely on the authority of others: scriptures, church leaders, parents. Even prayer can be seen as an appeal to authority. Authority can be right, of course, particularly when it is backed by expertise. Of course, as E. Benson said in his Fourteen Fundamentals talk, expertise is not required for church leaders, and we are beholden to follow them. The belief has been shared that everything said in the Ensign magazine and in General Conference is automatically scripture because it is spoken by church leaders.
Obviously, leader worship as embodied in lists like The Fourteen Fundamentals creates pressure.
The appeal to authority is an integral part of the Asch effect. In repeated and modified instances of the Asch conformity experiments, it was found that high-status individuals create a stronger likeliood of a subject agreeing with an obviously false conclusion, despite the subject normally being able to clearly see that the answer was incorrect.
Further, humans have been shown to feel strong emotional pressure to conform to authorities and majority positions. A repeat of the Asch experiments found that “Participants reported considerable distress under the group pressure”, with 59% conforming at least once and agreeing with the clearly incorrect answer, whereas the incorrect answer was much more rarely given when no such pressures were present.
Why does appeal to authority happen, even when evidence contradicts statements made by those in authority?
- We doubt ourselves when the majority hold a different opinion.
- Those in authority have more access to broadcast their views.
- People who are confident often become leaders.
- Expertise in one area doesn’t mean a person has expertise in all areas. Intelligent people can be mistaken, particularly in areas that aren’t their field.
Is it possible to have faith without appeal to authority? How do people avoid appeal to authority arguments?
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
When I remember that God told me one thing, and yet more recently someone else has been telling me something else, something rather convincing and desirable, is it appeal to authority to say, “Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.”?
There is a place for belief. There is a place for faith. It is not necessary that every decision be supportable by logic or rationality. The devil wants us to argue with him, to engage him on terms of logic and rationality. Don’t argue with the devil.
I believe in the gospel of Jesus Christ and the restoration in these latter days, as a matter of faith and choice. I will not countenance or consider or enter into any argument that is contrary to that faith. I will stand with my God.
Who says logic must be supreme? The Savior said the only way to know of the truth of the gospel is to live the gospel. Logic and rationality and the sophistries of men, or simple faith? I’ll choose faith.
Isn’t revelation itself essentially an appeal to authority? We assume that what God is revealing is true, because He is God. It gets doubly tricky when the revelation from God comes through a religious authority figure. It’s an appeal to an authority who is appealing to an authority. Faith seems to rely on the appeal to the highest authority, God, but doesn’t necessarily need to rely on appealing to the lower intermediary authorities.
Of course, just because an argument uses a logical fallacy does not make that argument untrue.
I found it interesting that in http://mormonstories.org/david-campbell-on-politics-religion-and-mormonism/ that when they are surveying they found one area that Mormon’s were just off the charts in comparison to any other religion. It was (if I remember correctly) the influence of a statement on someone’s answer to a question. When comparing the effect of attributing a statement to a top church leader vs no attribution it was near unanimous agreement with the church leader’s statement. Some of the examples were interesting. Such as back in the 80’s when nuclear missiles were proposed to be stationed in Utah. Given most Mormons in Utah were ‘conservative’, but as soon as the first presidency stated they were against them at that point the LDS’s ‘opinion’ changed nearly 180 degrees.
This can be seen as good and showing faith. I think where hawkgrrrl is pointing at that it also has another dimension. That is if a church leader ever makes a mistake, they will be taking quite a few people with them. If we assume leaders are fallible as they say they are, we need to have some caution to blindly following and we need to check with the Lord to have the Holy Ghost confirm what they say. This is what our leaders have taught. To say otherwise is edging towards blind obedience.
We shouldn’t have faith in men or in the institutions of men but instead have faith only in God. Nobody else is worthy of it.
Authority outside of God is a myth created by those who want to control others. God created us all equal. We learn this from Alma, “Mosiah 23:7. But he said unto them: Behold, it is not expedient that we should have a king; for thus saith the Lord: Ye shall not esteem one flesh above another, or one man shall not think himself above another; therefore I say unto you it is not expedient that ye should have a king.”
If you believe you should be subject to men you have been deceived by men: http://gregstocks.wordpress.com/2014/10/25/we-believe-in-being-subject-to/
I discussed the Asch experiment as an introduction to my RS lesson about truth many years ago (the John Taylor manual), stating that we needed to be those who would speak/stand up for the truth regardless of those around us. Of course, as a religious minority here in Britain, I imagine it all plays out very differently to Utah. Here, to be a member of the church is not to conform with the majority around us.
That said, there is now a subset of members in my generation, who were raised in the church who are much more in a church conformist frame. That makes me nervous.
I don’t do too well with appeals to authority. Pretty much guaranteed to raise hackles.
I cried really hard last night. I was released from my calling and my bishop asked how I could feel comfortable going to the temple. So I handed over my temple recommend as well.
I cried not because I feel my beliefs and faith are misplaced but because I was released from my primary calling. My 8 year old kids who I have grown to love. I teach them differently and more faith promoting. Not in old ways but beautiful ways. Actually that is not even the problem my bishop has.
He asked if I had a testimony that this is the true church, Joseph Smith, Prophets today, and Jesus Christ as our Savior and Redeemer. I said it is not historicity to me but it is more beautiful but No I can’t answer yes as you ask. Do you have a belief in God? Yes and I know I can create happiness and beauty. Miracles have occurred that led me to this path.
This is a long story but to make short. I left the bishops office with no regrets but could bear testimony of the truth as I know it. It is simple but not based history of a document or a person but a belief in God and the Kingdom of Heaven we can create in the NOW.
I read this post above today and my heart thinks about the spirit that came from my bishop and his compassion. I understood where he was coming from and I told him I loved him and his family but my faith was grown-up and not in the Church/Prophets but in God that the whole of humanity share. What about the kids? It is about guiding their own journey and not giving them a list of shame tactics to keep them conforming.
Life is about LOVE and nothing else. MY heart is sad to see that there was no room for my beliefs in the Church to hold my calling. I have no problem with scripture and using it to teach wonderful principles to live by and grow in faith. I just can’t see it as “historical”.
My husband was with me and said that he questions to but not sure yet. He hesitated but then in the end said that if you are releasing my wife go ahead and release me because my beliefs are really changing but she is further down the path than me. So we will both be released from our callings and someone who conforms to teach the youth and primary placed in our steads.
I really don’t feel any animosity toward my bishop. That is part of his job as it is now understood. After almost 2 hours of a spiritual meeting that I know touched him, he may go home and ponder a few things. He really was sad to have to release me after 7 years of knowing our family. I have not regrets.
when I saw the word appeal I thought this was about Kate Kelly’s appeal being denied
Appeal to authority is for those who lack faith in their own relationship with God. It broker’s a version a gospel but, there are many gospels, some higher than the LDS correlated 3 hour block version. For example the beatitudes eclipse the 10 commandments yet we focus far more on the 10 Cs. The mighty change of heart eclipses rote obedience yet obedience is marketed every Sunday as the first law of heaven (perhaps meaning beginning vs most important?) and actually following the spirit places one beyond the law (see Galicians 5) Each of these different levels of progression has a different gospel so how can one-size-fits-all general authority advice be taken seriously as the only true gospel? Appeal to authority only appeals to those who have not yet transcended the beginning gospel levels.
I think faith vs. authority is a progression. When we are young in the gospel, we tend to have more faith in what were are told than in what we know. As we gain knowledge, our faith in that knowledge grows and our reliance on others should lessen.
We are told to discern truth from error. The more knowledge we process, the better able we are to do that.
There is a sort of blind faith expectation toward authority in the Church. However, it is not scriptural, it is not doctrinal and it is not practical. Blind faith almost always leads to disappointment.
People are not perfect and thus, we should not expect every word or thought out of their month to be so either.
Our job is to accept what we know to be true, to have faith in things unseen and to experiment on the word, including those that are spoken to us by leaders at all levels.
Some people seem to get so out of joint about things that get said that they don’t agree with. Given that we are all individual responsible for our own salvation, it is up to us to just leave it alone. To me, that has always worked.
You don’t like the “two earring story,” just ignore that it was even spoken. That’s what I did.
“Appeal to authority is a form of unreliable argument used to dismiss contrary evidence by overlooking errors in judgment, bias, dishonestly or group think made by those in authority.” If you put it that way, I don’t know there’s a whole lot else to say. What appeal to authority did you make to come up with that definition?
Sue I’m sorry to hear about the drama with the bishop. I believe a lot of the same things you do, but I’m on the High Council because I keep my personal beliefs private at church, and I preach the correlated gospel at church. Some might think I’m a wolf in sheep’s clothing, but its not it at all. I believe that Mormons need Mormonism, so that’s what I give them, I believe it is what God gives them, because normal people need things to be very basic without confusing contradictions so we can all focus on service, etc.
But individuals like yourself who can’t resolve contradictions with correlated Mormonism can still serve (if you feel God wants you to continue to serve), while having your own personal way of resolving those contradictions. Most bishops can’t deal with liberal ways of resolving contradictions, so I don’t even bother sharing my beliefs with them. It would trouble them, and they’d say idiotic things like “I don’t know how you can go to the temple with your beliefs.”
I just want you to know there is another way to go if you want to continue to serve. But you have to have confidence in your own beliefs and be OK with the fact that they are quite different from the people you will serve. And you have to be careful about sharing them.
But all this is mute if you feel like correlated Mormonism is just plain morally wrong. Then you have to be a progressive like Kate Kelly. But if you can acknowledge that correlated Mormonism is good for most Mormons, but not always for yourself, then there is still a place for you.
I was thinking about something similar to what Nate said just this morning. The first rule of improv comedy is “Yes, and.” You are working with other people, and they can come up with some crazy suggestions, but you always say “Yes, and,” accepting and building on whatever they say. You don’t have to like it, just to figure out how to accept it, go with it, redirect it, and add your own ideas to it. If progressives push for too much progress, conservatives will be lost. If conservatives refuse to allow any progress, progressives are lost. “Yes, and” is a lot like the body of Christ analogy – we need all of it, even the parts we don’t like.
It seems to me that avoiding appeal to authority requires courage. I tend to agree with Jeff that we should simply ignore things that are dumb rather than fighting every fight. Certainly as pertains to our own lives we should.
At the 96-stake conference in AZ yesterday, E. Foster shared a story of a wise man to whom various things happened. People around him labelled those events as “good” or “bad,” but every time, he said he didn’t know whether it was good or bad, and as it turned out, some of the “bad” things had “good” consequences (e.g. son broke his leg, but then couldn’t go to war where all his peers were killed). This inability to see the long game is part of our faith proposition, that God knows and sees more than we can, that time will tell, that what seems “good” can be used for evil, and what seems “bad” can turn out for our betterment. Handing our lives over to a higher power like that, assuming that eventually all will be alright, to me that seems like a sound spiritual principle. But turning over our decision making to authority figures, in great things or small things, to me that sounds like a recipe for not owning our own choices in life.
Nate,
Thanks for the caring words. I admire that you are able to live the dual life. I am not sure I can do that.
You see I have lived 20 years with living 2 lives. Suffering with depression, anxiety and betrayal trauma. Sitting in many bishops offices during those years to find comfort in the atonement, the Savior, scriptures, conference talks. They all tried their best but the messages varied.
My husband was living a parallel lie of shame,guilt, self-loathing, fear, etc all really stemming from childhood abandonment issues and shame taught growing up in Idaho. His sex addiction was his medication and his greatest fear was losing his family. He felt trapped. He was disfellowshiped twice. Yes, even our current bishop/stake president were shocked that our compassionate stake-president only disfellowshiped him (now my husband thinks it is wrong to punish members at all as that is not how Christ taught).
It was so crazy as my head cleared and found space to ask questions that the answers were never the ones I was taught and they also brought me greater peace and spirituality in my life.
I have lived a non-authentic life and I don’t want my kids to feel they have to be non-authentic. That is what I see my 18 year old who is very hard on himself to be perfect and it only creates more shame (I taught him well..lol). I feel like I want to just be ME!!! I have a meditation practice, teach yoga (started a yoga business), taking a mindfulness training class (very spiritual…recommend), and have been in therapy for 1.5 years.
I compare my life to Naaman:
I read the story of Naaman and saw if new for the first time a few weeks ago. Tradition- follow the prophet. New- I am Naaman. I am a leper who has tried all that my country had to offer with no healing. A slave (OK…so I have a few weaknesses) tells me to go to this other country where she is from and I can be healed. I really don’t want to go as I love my country but I can’t suffer any longer. If there is a path to healing I will try anything at this point.
So I go to the king of Israel and he get’s nervous cause I am the bad guy. I usually hurt those not from my country and take slaves from them also (as members we many times hurt those not of our tradition by our closed mindedness, exclusivity, and one truth). The prophet learns of this and Namaan is sent to him to be healed. This prophet represents personal revelation, our inner guide and the prophet sends a servant (Revelation never comes in the way you think it should) who tells you to dip in the water 7 times. So I think he is crazy. That is a dirty river. I have clean rivers back home. Why can’t I just go there. Why the dirty Jordon River? I have a servant (those close to us, trusted)who says to just try. Just dip in 7 times. What are you out for trying? Worst case scenario. Nothing happens and maybe you will be healed. So I did just that.
I dipped into the so-called dirty water. It was out of my comfort zone. It was not my usually things I had tried. First was therapy. Yoga certification and teaching others in my business healing through mediation and yoga, quitting my nursing job, personal Meditation practice. Mindfulness teachings and present moment living. Seeing a psychiatrist and medication for depression, anxiety and attention deficit disorder (no-hyperactivity).
What I say to myself after I am free from the suffering and pain of my nightmare of lepersy??? It was not what I thought would heal me. It was a miracle though and for that I am so grateful. I go back home to my family and friends (church) because I love them, they are good people. I am at home with them. I want to have a place with them with my new thinking and living. I find they want me but just not in any position to influence someone to that maybe there is a different way of looking at all the stories we tell ourselves.
I love that there is many paths and that you have found your path in the church that works for you. I love that you are able to help people from in a position of leadership and influence. You can understand where others will be shaming.
I think I will have to be authentic and suffer the consequences. My husband feels the same. That is why he told the bishop to begin with. The bishop called one night to see how I was doing. He told him to ask me. (we have been very active with most bishops due to our history) He then asks a few other questions and my husband was not willing to answer a few of his questions non-authentically. I then also responded with an email as he told my husband it sounds like he needs to have a spiritual experience (yea, that is the problem…he did)
I am not afraid. I have lived in fear for 20 years. Fear that really was from the shame taught in the church and our society at large. My bishop’s faith is so simple that he does not see that is part of the culture or is blind as he has not had the same experience my husband and I have had.
He usually refers to an experience he had at 15 that solidly placed his feet in the church but he has not reexamined a more deep understanding that is possible. I am just tired of fear. I am also OK if others want to keep their simple faith. I am not one to drop bombs on the tender faith of people.
I think if I lived in Utah it would be almost necessary for some to live the dual life due to the fact that there is so little separation. I am hoping I may have more wiggle room as most are not members but I just can’t shock the simple young minds of my children by turning their world upside down. They don’t know but I am teaching them differently and hopefully they can decide their own path and journey with no shame attached.
I didn’t mean shame growing up in Idaho…I meant shame as taught in his family/church while growing up in Idaho (where most were members).
To start with, I try to respect all points of view. W&T is the best major LDS blog, in my opinion, precisely for the simple reason nearly all points of view are expressed without the hand of censorship being applied.
I think hawkgrrrl’s blogging is well thought out and evokes logic thinking. She expresses her point of view honestly. I wish I could communicate as well.
Now I am going to attempt to communicate my point of view.
hawkgrrrl asked: Is it possible to have faith without appeal to authority? How do people avoid appeal to authority arguments?
A careful reading of scripture, and in particularly the Book of Mormon, teaches that followers of Christ can progress and grow in faith if they don’t let go of the iron rod.
It is imperative that followers of Christ progress to the point they experience rebirth–being born again. Another way of saying this is to acquire a testimony and then experience conversion at some point.
Those who see things from the testimony point of view are different when they reach the point of view that comes from conversion.
It might be compared to a grade school level of understanding math to that of a college student majoring in math. Both have access to truth, but at different levels. The college student is able to use her skills to solve more complex problem that are beneficial to society.
She also has greater faith in those who are obtaining advanced degrees in math in areas that she doesn’t currently understand. She chooses learn from them, she will even exercise faith in their pronouncements (appeal to authority).
The point is that grade school math provides power to those who possess it, more power is available at the college and graduate levels.
The same is true about things of the Spirit. The Lord has set things up so that those with advanced spiritual callings are put in positions of trust and authority so they can serve others. It doesn’t mean they are perfect any more than a parent is perfect but it has proven to be a very useful way to deal with humankind.
Jared: “Those who see things from the testimony point of view are different when they reach the point of view that comes from conversion.” This reminded me of a post I did a while back called the Testimony Puzzle: http://bycommonconsent.com/2013/06/02/the-testimony-puzzle/ I shared snippets of my mother’s conversion story, and they illustrate this very point, that what really changed was her perspective on the things that happened. She began by seeing the church as very narrow-minded and controlling, and then she saw it as wise council and how it freed her. Basically, both of those viewpoints are partly right, but her conversion is what changed, not the church.
It’s similar to what Johnathan Haidt says about the elephant and the rider. He compared our beliefs and values to an elephant with a rider. The elephant goes where it goes, and the rider explains why it went there, even though the rider is just making a guess, justifying the elephant’s actions. Likewise, we have a hard time determining just why we believe what we believe. We just believe it. Our elephant goes there. Explaining our logical justification for our beliefs is the rider trying to explain why the elephant went where it went. We don’t really know, but we try to convince others or ourselves that we do and that it makes sense.
When it comes to avoiding logical fallacies, awareness of those fallacies is valuable if it helps us to avoid pitfalls of groupthink or lack of accountability for our decisions. The Asche experiment is very telling, and I suspect Mormons wouldn’t do well in that type of experiment. We are too willing to give up our own views for those of leaders. Even our leaders caution against too much leader worship, while at the same time, some of them make it difficult to disagree.
Jared, I agree almost wholeheartedly with your comment. But I think the place your analogy fails is with the tenured professor focused on his own pet project instead of the course material and the lackluster brown-nosing student who is promoted to TA and is now grading everyone else’s papers.
Sue, my previous response was hackneyed and presumptuous, and I’m sorry for that. It’s no way to respond to someone who is having a crisis of faith and on a real and complicated journey. I have some more to say, but I’ll think about it and respond on your blog, which is beautiful by the way.
The first definition of faith explains it to me…“1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something.”
Trust comes from experience. We don’t re-evaluate our belief system with each new situation or new talk over the pulpit.
We don’t have time as humans, so when we develop a trust, we defer to that rather than re-invent the thought wheels each time.
When a person experiences a spiritual manifestation from the scriptures of truth, while there is more to progress and learn, it becomes a trusted source. When someone joins the church by accepting the leaders’ (prophets) interpretations, it is something one can have faith in because it feels right and makes sense to us and produces good fruit.
After years and years of trusting the source, then a new topic (take, Prop8) is accepted in the light of supporting leaders who have been trusted based on past experience, and sometimes that is the problem because then it isn’t being evaluated on the issue itself, but on trust of others who have taken time to interpret it for us.
There is danger in it because our testimonies can be lazy excuses for searching out truth on our own. But sometimes, we just don’t take the time or make the effort, when the group or leader we trust has already provided us an easy path.
In Mormonism, I believe you get instant respect for trusting leaders, and the courage to disagree isn’t valued, even if it proves to be true in the end.
hawkgrrrl, appeal to authority is a formal logical fallacy, meaning that an appeal to authoirty can’t be used to prove something as a logical proposition.
That is not the same thing as saying that “appeal to authority is not a reliable argument for establishing facts.”
If you ask me a question about the US estate tax, and you ask my brother the same question about the US estate tax (and we give you answers) you can’t say that my answer is true as a logical proposition even though I am a tax lawyer and he is not. To say that x (my answer) is true because I am a tax lawyer is a failure of logical reasoning, because, despite the fact that I am more of an authoirty on the tax code than my brother is, it is still possible that I am wrong.
However, in reality you are significantly more likely to get a correct answer about the tax code from me than you are from my brother, because, as a tax lawyer, I know a lot more about the US estate tax than he does. You’re not committing a logical fallacy by deciding to rely on my authority, because the category of “logical fallacies” simply does not apply to that kind of evaluative, evidence-weighing framework.
It’s not irrelevant of course–one would be well to remember that even tax lawyers get the tax code wrong sometimes (perish the thought)–but it is also not the case that my brother’s answer is as good as my answer to your tax question.
Also I am obviously not an authority on correctly typing the word “authority.” Or proofreading my internet comments.
Hawkgrrl, this is a great post and brings up some good points.
Most Mormons, like Jared, would say “The Lord has set things up so that those with advanced spiritual callings are put in positions of trust and authority so they can serve others. It doesn’t mean they are perfect any more than a parent is perfect but it has proven to be a very useful way to deal with humankind.”
Our leaders are seen as superior, spiritually, therefore with access to greater knowledge and truth than the average member. So it would be natural that we would trust what they say. Problems arise, usually with liberal Mormons, who begin to ask too many questions and see flaws and contradictions, and that belief in the leadership superiority begins to crumble. What to do in this situation?
I think liberals, or those who see imperfections in the church, legitimate imperfections lets say, need to recognize the difference between authority and truth. Both are important and powerful.
For example, when Columbus wanted to sail across the Atlantic to India, he had truth on his side. He knew the world was round. But he still had to appeal to authority. He wouldn’t be able to raise the capital on his own, neither financial, or political, to be able to conclusively prove what he knew was true. So he went to the King and Queen of Spain, and they decided to trust what Colombus was saying and put their authority behind it. That transformed the financial and political landscape, leading to the greatest discoveries of the last Millennia. The King and Queen could have said no, and history might have been set back by decades or centuries. So their power and authority was real and significant. In combination with scientific learning, their authority was transformative.
I think it is the same in the church. The church is fundamentally a government, not a scientific establishment searching for truth. We are asked “Do you accept Thomas S. Monson as the ONLY one authorized to exercise all priesthood keys?” We are not asked, “Do you believe that Thomas S. Monson has the whole truth and nothing but the truth?”
Authorities can be wrong, slow, backward, or progressive. But authority is power, and power is transformative. Truth is not very transformative in and of itself. It needs an authoritative vehicle in order to take on real power.
So the church is exercising real spiritual power in the lives of its members, with millions of them tuning into General Conference and having epiphanies, feeling the Spirit, committing to sacrifice, obey, serve, etc. This tremendous power of the church’s authority is usually put to good use, except it might be argued in cases like Prop. 8. But I’d say in general, we have great power and authority in church government for good.
But there are lots of little discrepancies, flaws, and misperceptions. The church doesn’t seem to always have the truth on its side, and there seems to be some better ideas and important truths the church is overlooking on the outside.
While that may be the case, it does not negate the authority of the church. The transformative truth of ordaining women, for example, (if it is really a good idea), is of no consequence if the authorities don’t try it. They risk losing a few fringe members, that’s all. That is their power. Truth can’t do anything without it.
Kullervo,
We may be dealing with multiple meanings for words, but I don’t see the fact that you have undeniable EXPERIENCE with tax law quite the same as your AUTHORITY. The government is the authority in this case.
But I do see a bit of your point. There are times we look to authorities (experts). But sometimes we have seen leaders comment on things they are not experts on, but we assume revelation is giving an even higher authority.
The one situation that comes to my mind is the tragic handcart company. There were some that were EXPERIENCED and said that they shouldn’t go as it was too late in the season. The ecclesiastical leader said, “the Lord will bless us” and condemned the experienced leader publicly. So the people left and many died as a result. I know some like to make this faith promoting, but some people left the church over this and Brigham Young said he would excommunicate if someone left that late again. That is where we have conflicts that come up. When I look at this, I fault the leader that said “we have to go” and invoked his authority to speak in the name of God. But I also to some extent fault the individuals for not getting the Lord’s side. Now I am open that I am wrong on this and the Lord had some other reason for the company to go, but I don’t see it.
#23 HH…but in the case of handcart companies…death did not prove false “the Lord will bless us”. My ancestors in the Martin company recorded in journals how their families died, they trusted they were fully saved in heaven because of their sacrifice and obedience, and they felt they were blessed for generations. Therefore, trusting leaders isn’t disproved by a negative outcome, when faith comforts negative outcomes. Besides, my ancestors received spiritual witnesses along the way that increased their trust in their trek, even as they were starving and freezing to death. God bless them.
The tax analogy would work if my brother worked for the IRS, and had authority to state which interpretation was correct, even if his opinion was one interpretation just like a tax lawyer had an opinion on a tax issue…the tax lawyer can argue the case, but the IRS agent can audit and make a ruling to fine or not fine a tax procedure.
Experience, expertise and authority are interchangeable for the purposes of the appeal to authority fallacy.
#24 Heber – I apologize if my attempted analogy caused any offense. Even as I try and figure out exactly what my relationship towards church leadership should be (an area I am struggling with now) – I absolutely feel for those that suffered on that trek. I do hope that they had generations blessed.
#25 Kullervo – I don’t know that I agree they are always interchangeable. What if new bishop in Africa that has only been a member for a few years decides to combine the 2 sacrament prayers to get the meeting done quicker. He is not an expert as the handbook is clear that is not correct. He is not had much experience to see that this is not how it is done. But if confronted and he says, “I am the bishop of this ward” he most certainly is appealing to his authority. I am not an English major. I am an engineer. So I don’t see any use in an engineer and tax accountant squabbling over exact meanings of words. If you disagree with the premise of Hawkgirrrl’s blog, I will not change your mind by Webster’s dictionary. The converse is true.
No offense, HH. I’m on my own trek now…not sure what my relationship is towards leaders either, I have no ultimate rule. I’ll obey when I feel it is right, I’ll follow my conscience God gave me. I am not sure I’d join the Martin Handcart company if I had some experience or intelligence that would suggest it was a horrible mistake. I wouldn’t go just because a leader said so.
But sometimes we don’t know. So we trust in the leaders we think know.
When we have multiple experiences they can be trusted, we trust them more. When we start to doubt they know what they are talking about…it becomes an internal struggle of faith against reason.
In my experience, I have been blessed at times by using reason…when leaders actually didn’t know my personal circumstance to know what to tell me to do. I have tried to develop my relationship with God to guide me…and use leaders as another data point…not the only data point needed.
There are some ideas about who are called as leaders that do not fit with my experience. Hawk questions whether, people who are confident, are called as leaders. Jared says those who are spiritually mature are called as leaders.
Living well away from Utah, I will say that until about 1980 when Area Presidencies were introduced, this was the case, but when Utah educated leaders (Area Presidencies) became the power, the requirement for leadership became obedience.
I would suggest that Sues experience with her Bishop would be much different if he was coming from a position of spiritual maturity, (much more accepting and inclusive) than a position of obedience.
Nate I have given up the double life as you describe it, because I came to realise that in most congregations there are 20 to 30% of the members who are questioning, and believe they are the only ones. When my wife and I contribute to lessons honestly we invariably find people quietly saying they also agree, and question.
In the post the discussion about the Asch conformity experiment is raised. If there were more than one acceptable point of view this experiment would work very differently. There is no acceptable way to have those with different views to the authorised view support each other. Kate Kelly tried this and was not appreciated for her efforts.
It may be that some in the 15 are trying to present an accepting alternative Holland and Uchtdorf for example) but as authority is seen as united it is not possible for them to be seen as different from others of the 15, and the obedient ones do not realise or accept that they might be. I had a discussion about gay marriage with my SP who was convinced that he would find talks by Holland and Uchtdorf saying the same things Oakes said.
There is room for a broader understanding of the Gospel to be acceptable and included in the church. Sue should not have to be excluded. I am an optimist and believe it will come when the Apostles who are now in their 70s replace those who are over 80. A retirement age for Apostles would hasten the work but it will come anyway.
I venture to say that appeal to authority cannot intrinsically be judged. It can be just as much of an act of faith as evidence of lack of faith.
If you’re appealing to authority to try to convince someone else, it’s nothing more than an argument, neither faithful nor unfaithful. If you are using it to avoid thinking about or dealing with something, it can simply be a bridge. If you are using it to prove how much more align you are than someone else, it is an act of pride. If you are speaking against it to prove how much more in tune you are than others, it is an act of pride. If you are using it to bridge the time between lack of understanding and enlightenment, it is an act of faith. It can be a way to validate the impressions you already have.
I could go on, but in short it can be many things.
I don’t think it’s helpful to judge everyone who appeals to authority as lacking in faith, or lacking in a personal relationship with Christ, or as more righteous..
At any rate, it is incredibly unhelpful to try to judge people who appeal to authority as less righteous as much as it is unhelpful to judge those who ignore authority as less righteous. Ultimate, what difference does it make to us, personally, why they do what they do?
“If you’re appealing to authority to try to convince someone else, it’s nothing more than an argument, neither faithful nor unfaithful. If you are using it to avoid thinking about or dealing with something, it can simply be a bridge. If you are using it to prove how much more align you are than someone else, it is an act of pride. If you are speaking against it to prove how much more in tune you are than others, it is an act of pride. If you are using it to bridge the time between lack of understanding and enlightenment, it is an act of faith. It can be a way to validate the impressions you already have.” Great list!
Quick quote bomb:
Facts are not determined by authority. Authority can make law to be law; authority cannot make facts to be facts.
-Austin Farrer, “Infallibility and Historical Tradition,” in The Truth-Seeking Heart, ed. Ann Loades and Robert MacSwain (Norwich: Canterbury Press, 2006),
In most of the comments about “appeal to authority” (#23, #24, #26, et.al.), I think the commenters may have missed an important point. Kullervo has undoubtedly thrown his lawyerly hands up in frustration at this point, but he is speaking of the Appeal to Authority as a logical fallacy. In other words, the notion that “A is an authority on a particular topic; A says something about that topic; A is probably correct.” That’s not proof. It might be evidence, of a sort, but that’s all.
That said, I like the way SilverRain laid it out, too – a lot – as long as you remove the concept of “appeal to authority” from the realm of “logical fallacies.”
Well, we can certainly talk about “appeal to authority” in more than one sense. That’s not a problem; the problem is when we conflate them, which I think the OP did.
In Sue’s case, where she’d become attached to her students in Primary class, IF I’d been in that Bishop’s place, AND supposing that she’d expressed her feelings of loss upon being released, I’d work post-haste to find her another suitable calling. We’re told that we ought to serve out of love for those we serve, and when someone actually does that, it shouldn’t be counted as a negative if they take being released a bit hard! Most bishops ARE sensitive in this regard, but I’ve had the displeasure of some real clueless dunderheads that treat members with all the warmth and charm of Ebenezer Scrooge BEFORE being visited by the three Christmas ghosts.
Douglas,
I have worked through my tears and feel peace with this next step. I don’t want another calling. I love teaching and I teach 10 yoga classes. I have seen those kids grow for the past 11 months and I just got attached. I would have had a new group eventually. My bishop was kind but he is just doing the best he can with a bishop’s handbook.
The authority he has may strip my calling and my temple recommend but he can’t take my spirituality away from me or my sense of peace with my faith path. I have sat in to many bishops and stake president’s offices begging for help and peace but finding little to give up what I know now for what I had before.
Thanks for your concern. I really only want to grow in my mindfulness training and teach in the community as a RN, Yoga teacher, and inspire those around me towards greater love and peace toward self and others.
There is a just distinction between knowledge contrary to reason and knowledge above reason – Samuel Johnson