Quick intro. I’m reading a book of essays on Pragmatism, the philosophical way of thinking (it would be wrong to call it a system) developed by the Americans C. S. Peirce, William James, and John Dewey during the last decades of the 19th century and into the early 20th century. All three rejected the overly abstract and systematic approaches of other schools of their time and emphasized instead engagement with facts and real-world problems. The pragmatic theory of truth emphasizes not some ideal or absolute set of declarations but rather the method of inquiry that leads toward truth and that moves you in the right direction. Peirce endorses the scientific model of inquiry, with “truth” being the knowledge arrived at after a sufficiently long process of repeated inquiry. James emphasized the practical utility of truth for lived experience (what he sometimes called “the cash value” of a truth claim) and was open to a variety of views or theories (pluralism) rather than monolithic models that sideline or suppress alternate views. Note that both of these require a community or social process to generate truth claims.
Let’s narrow the focus a bit. This “method of inquiry” approach can apply to decisions, policies, and truth claims, which all come out the far end of a social process of inquiry and engagement. It might be “where do we build the new bridge?” or “what is the abortion policy or set of laws for State X?'” or “what condition defines when a person is legally or medically dead?” I’ll look at LDS examples a bit later. And let’s consider three general methods of inquiry: you the individual (or some other individual) decide; an expert in the field decides; or a democratic group process, suitably defined, decides. The problem becomes which method of inquiry is appropriate for which decisions, policies, or (claimed) statements of truth? Who decides? Who should decide?
So with that introduction, here is a quote from one essay in the book that sets up this scenario in more detail and with more clarity than I can. Read it, then we’ll apply all this to religious questions and, of course, LDS questions. Here’s the quote, with enumeration and bolding added by me:
Finding the proper standard of measurement is an endless process for individuals, and it is even harder for different individuals to reach consensus on what those measuring sticks should be. [This problem] has revolved around deciding (1) what judgments are properly to be made by individuals, independent of the judgment of others, such as questions of religious experience were for James; (2) what questions are to be decided by highly trained experts comprising communities of inquiry, such as questions of economic and environmental regulation …; and (3) what issues are best decided by the messy, contentious, and imperfect democratic process.
One could make this model more complicated, but it’s fairly helpful as is. You alone decide how your vote is cast; the messy democratic process determines who wins the election. A controversial bond measure vote might determine whether a bridge gets funded; experts will design and construct the bridge itself; you alone might decide whether to pay the toll and cross the new bridge or skip the toll and take the long way around. Okay, let’s look at LDS examples. These are more interesting than you might think.
Missions. Given how much emphasis is placed on LDS proselyting, the decision of a young man or woman to serve an LDS mission is rather surprisingly solely his or her individual decision. Sure, there is strong encouragement for young men to volunteer, but plenty of young LDS men nonetheless decline. For LDS young women, it is somewhat more of an open decision, but with plenty of admiration and support for those who choose to go. The actual details of service, from where a missionary serves to what one wears to what activities one undertakes, are all decided by experts (in this context, LDS leaders or their designated managers and functionaries).
Leaders. Think bishops and stake presidents. Experts (again, in this context, LDS leaders) pull the strings here. Unlike missionaries, bishops don’t volunteer, they are specifically recruited by a higher up leader. The individual who is called may decline, of course, but this is apparently not a frequent occurrence. Local congregations appear to validate the choice “by common consent,” which sounds like a democratic process but this is not a meaningful vote, at least as practiced today. It’s almost entirely a ritual rather than a group decision process or even a group approval. (I say “almost” because a person with relevant knowledge about the selected candidate may, on rare occasions, vote no and later share that knowledge privately with a senior leader, which might impel that leader to rescind the call.)
Temple attendance. I’m looking for an example where a pseudo-democratic process gets some traction. Local leaders (experts) may encourage local members to attend an LDS temple and individuals of course decide whether they do or don’t go on any given day or month. But taken as a whole, say for your stake for the first quarter of 2024, the resulting statistics provide a “vote with your feet” aggregate result, somewhat like a vote tabulation. Stake A might have 60% of active members who attended in the quarter, Stake B 40%,and Stake C 15%. I’m sure someone, somewhere in the LDS hierarchy prepares such a report, for a very limited distribution. The Church collects a lot of data; I’m sure there are many such reports prepared, with very little of that data reported publicly or shared with the membership in general. In the Church, there really are not any formal democratic processes where votes get counted, but there are quite a few of these “vote with your feet” scenarios. It’s the only vote we get.
Secret Polls. Well, that’s not entirely true. While senior leaders do not present issues or decisions to the membership and tally votes, they do employ trained personnel who conduct targeted surveys that are sent to selected groups of members. You might have seen one of these before or actually participated by completing and returning such a survey. One came to my ward once, but I declined to participate because I did not believe their claim that the submissions would be anonymous (the individual packets were barcoded and my answers would have been well outside expected orthodox responses). A properly designed and administered poll, with sufficient responses, provides data that mirrors, within certain statistical confidence intervals, the results of a true vote or election.
Leaders don’t need to (and don’t want to) run an actual vote or election to see what the membership wants on a given issue. Instead, they do secret polls, gather the data, and tabulate results, but don’t share those results. The data mirror, perhaps, what a vote that would decide an actual issue would look like. But the secret polls don’t decide any issues — they just tell senior leaders how the members would likely vote on a given issue. To put it bluntly, the secret polling is not a decision-making process, it’s a manipulation process. They use the data to then fashion their own desired policies or initiatives, modified in light of the gathered data so as to be more effective at accomplishing leadership goals.
Doctrine. Let’s take just one doctrinal example. Elder McConkie (expert) was very adamant that there was no progression between kingdoms in the hereafter. If you find yourself in the Terrestrial Kingdom, per Elder McConkie, that’s where you stay, worlds without end. But there are plenty of active, orthodox LDS who, for various reasons, believe that at some point in the hereafter resurrected persons can possibly cross those boundaries. Some LDS are deeply concerned about this topic. Of course, individuals can believe anything they want to in their heart of hearts. If every active LDS were invited to vote on this question, I’m pretty sure the majority would check the box that said, “Sure, at some point resurrected persons can move up to the Terrestrial and even the Celestial Kingdom.”
I’m also sure that some readers, trained by years of Mormon talks and declarations, will respond, “That’s no way to establish doctrine. We want *true* doctrine, definitive doctrine, delivered by inspired authorities on the subject.” Here’s the Pragmatic point: Truth isn’t low-hanging fruit just growing on trees. A particular statement or claim of truth is the result of a method of inquiry, some of which are more reliable than others, some more appropriate for a given question or topic than others, but *none* of them come with an indelible stamp of cosmic approval. Descartes and his Rationalist successors claimed that “clear and distinct ideas” carried some inherent stamp of truth beyond what simple collections of facts might provide. LDS often view prayer confirmations in the same light, or even striking dreams, as carrying a similar divine stamp of truth. The Pragmatists rejected any of this sort of “peek behind the curtain” approaches to getting at truth. We’re stuck with human methods of inquiry, some better, some worse, but if we are careful and think clearly we can *improve* our methods of inquiry and, with further inquiry, we can arrive at successively better and more truthful answers, models, and decisions. What’s the better method of inquiry here, the expert’s view (McConkie’s view) or the group process view of Mormons as a whole? Or maybe your own personal reflections and view? Who’s to say?
Another Pragmatic comment on this choice of approaches: pluralism generally trumps orthodoxy. That is, tolerating or even encouraging a variety of viewpoints is generally a better social process than allowing one favored viewpoint to define truth, then suppress competing or alternative views. Now my sense is that doctrine matters a lot less in the LDS Church of 2024 than it did say forty or fifty years ago, when Elder McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine was popular. For that reason alone, there’s more doctrinal pluralism tolerated in the Church of today than earlier. That’s probably a good thing, although LDS Correlation obviously cuts in the opposite direction. But they can only correlate manuals and magazines (which almost no one reads anymore). They can’t correlate us. If you believe there is progression between kingdoms, I don’t think anyone really cares anymore. If you make comments in class to that effect, no one really cares anymore. There are dozens of other doctrinal examples I could add if I had more time and you had more patience. My claim is that, for the most part, LDS doctrinal pluralism is defeating correlated orthodoxy.
I sort of shoehorned several ideas into this post. So pick one and run with it in the comments.
- There is no shortcut to truth, truth is always the result of humans employing methods of inquiry to arrive at defensible but defeasible decisions and conclusions. Agree or disagree?
- Name an LDS practice besides missions or callings that is a little more understandable in light of individual, expert, or group (democratic) methods of inquiry and decision making.
- Have you ever been given and responded to an official LDS survey? Did you ever hear anything back about the tabulated results?
- Can you think of another LDS doctrine where a significant percentage, or even a majority, of LDS endorse a view that differs from the expert (leadership) position?
- Who do you think is winning in the LDS Church of 2024, Team Pluralism or Team Orthodoxy?
[The quotation is from James T. Kloppenberg, “James’s Pragmatism and American Culture, 1907-2007,” in 100 Years of Pragmatism: William James’s Revolutionary Philosophy, John J. Stuhr, ed. (Indiana Univ. Press, 2010), 32]
Wheat & Tares 
“Finding the proper standard of measurement is an endless process for individuals, and it is even harder for different individuals to reach consensus on what those measuring sticks should be. [This problem] has revolved around deciding (1) what judgments are properly to be made by individuals, independent of the judgment of others, such as questions of religious experience were for James; (2) what questions are to be decided by highly trained experts comprising communities of inquiry, such as questions of economic and environmental regulation …; and (3) what issues are best decided by the messy, contentious, and imperfect democratic process.”
This is an interesting question when it comes to household management (and presiding). This is the assumption that “household decisions” are made by individuals for individuals (#1) sometimes and then there is a split. Women are generally ascribed the “highly trained experts” status due to “innate divine nature” and credentials from the “school of hard knocks” regarding executive functioning/emotional labor – except when it is not convenient to recognize that level of respect and authority (and change behaviors based on “expert advice”. At that point, the “highly trained expert” respect/status/authority is revoked in favor of the “messy, contentious and imperfect” process that leads to fights, contempt, divorce, and trauma in some re-shuffling order. I don’t know if holding the priesthood in an authorized way entitles men to similar expert level credentials in household management – but I do know that that cultural norm does bestow that “honorary degree” more often than not to priesthood holders.
It seems that males in partnerships eventually make different decisions and recognize “individual decision-making empowerment” and advocate for themselves in the democratic process.
My personal experience has been to do a lot of research ahead of time whenever possible, and to “share power” through assuming most decisions are “individual decisions” that do not require my judgement. To be fair, I handle a lot of stuff that “should be under the messy democratic process” of joint participation because it is usually easier to “do something myself” rather then “share responsibility”.
I once was sent a survey request, but I was disappointed to find that they were asking permission to survey my 18 year old son who had recently gone inactive (because he feels church isn’t a safe place for a LGBTQ people). I gave my permission (unneeded) but when I wrote back to the brother that asked my permission, I responded that as usual, the church doesn’t care what I actually think, but only what male leaders, and potential male leaders think. Told him I would be happy to fill out a survey myself, if they would give me one, and that my son is 18 and makes his own decisions (mostly).
On eternal progression vs permanent hierarchical heaven, I suggest you read D&C 19 to find out Joseph Smith’s ideas of how permanent eternal damnation is (it’s God’s damnation, so He can change His mind anytime He wants to regardless of what LDS leaders preach). Plus, in 76 Joseph is surprised to see Alvin in a vision of the celestial kingdom (this was before he learned about baptism for the dead).
McKonkie originally wrote and published Mormon Doctrine without President McKay’s permission or support. McKay asked it be taken off the shelves because he strongly disagreed with much of it and McKonkie found ways to wiggle out of it. Many other apostles expressed concern about Mormon Doctrine to McKay. Basically McKonkie took advantage of his prominence in the church to make money and establish doctrine in the church without prophetic authority. This information was taken from McKay’s secretary’s notes, and published in Gregory Prince’s “David O McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism”.
In the end McKay and the other apostles chose to get McKonkie to change some passages and they warned him not to do it again because they didn’t want to make him and themselves look bad by being firmer and clearer with the public about his error. McKonkie didn’t entirely respond to their directions even with later editions. This is part of why it is out of print (finally) today, and apostles are required to submit any publication to be cleared through the prophet, because they are seen as authoritative for the whole church, when often they are not.
One example that comes to mind was the Church reversing their decision to gut the Manti Temple. Their initial decision to replace (destroy) 140 years of hand-crafted interior work (murals, trimmings, etc…) with modern stationary rooms was met with overwhelmingly negative reception. Noticing the outcry, the Church updated their initial announcement a week later and stated that they would try to carefully remove the world room mural for a public diorama. One week after that, the First Presidency requested a report that compiled letters relating to the Manti Temple renovations (with those letters being received by an employee from the Government/Community Relations Department of the Church). One month later, the announcement was updated again, but this time with the promise that the Church would fully preserve the Manti Temple while building another temple in Ephraim to accommodate future growth in Sanpete Valley. Their final decision to preserve rather than tear down was obviously a response to concerns raised by members and preservationists alike, but of course, Elder Rasband was adamant that public pressure had nothing to do with the Church’s reversal.
Finding innovative solutions in response to concerns is a vital part of the revelatory process, and it’s unfortunate that the Church isn’t recognizing that.
We should probably admit a dirty little secret: Here on W&T we are concerned about things like doctrine vs policy, etc. But the reality is most LDS members, especially TBMs, don’t really care about these kinds of distinctions. In fact, you could show them how doctrine has changed over time without any kind of explanation and the typical members would say “so what?”.
For those of us who consider ourselves to be real truth seekers, this kind of stuff drives us nuts. The contradictions. The gas lighting. The baseless virtue signaling. But for most members this stuff doesn’t matter. I was an active LDS member for almost 50 years. My observation was that most members are on auto pilot.
I want add the name of Clare Middlemiss, McKay’s life long secretary, as an influential Mormon expert. Clare remained single and collected every scrap of McKay’s correspondence and took notes and kept them on every meeting and interaction. She controlled access to McKay and sometimes responded to letters to him herself. She left all her notes to her nephew, Wm. Robert Wright, who helped Gregory Prince write the history of McKay. Her story is one that reflects the journey of Mormon women, as we try to have influence in our community, but can only do so by attaching ourselves to a man.
“Name an LDS practice besides missions or callings that is a little more understandable in light of individual, expert, or group (democratic) methods of inquiry and decision making.”
I’ve been fascinated by the work being done by Mormonish podcast where they are actively reporting on city council meetings for recently announced temples, including Cody WY, Las Vegas NV, Bakersfield CA, and McKinney TX.
In listening to the McKinney TX town meeting, it appears the LDS church is trying to get an exception to build a temple well outside the bounds of zoning laws. They want a temple in this small town bigger than the temple in Dallas. The local community is relying on the city regulations to support their position that, while they welcome a temple, it needs to conform to city guidelines. Those not of the LDS faith are falling back on experts (ie those that created the zoning standards) and group methods of what is best for their small town.
As LDS members in the meeting couldn’t mount a defense based on fact, so they are mounting one based on emotion. Crying about how they are victims in the community because some people don’t view them as Christians, how their neighbors don’t care about their children because it’s dangerous for them to drive all the way to Dallas to attend the temple, trying to find doctrinal rationale for tall walls and steeples, etc. The LDS folks are ignoring experts and group methods and focusing solely on individual methods of inquiry, ie their feelings that a temple would be good for the community despite it breaking all the rules. One LDS member went so far as to say that if the choice is between being a good neighbor and following Jesus, she chooses Jesus, who I guess confirmed to her that he wants his temples big. Go figure.
The Church’s Prop 8 campaign in CA probably followed a similar format.
When the leaders say “jump” and members are counselled to pray until God confirms they should in fact “jump” well there you have it. I won’t call this relying on experts as I don’t view the leaders as experts in the things they often tell members to do. Rather I view it as individual method of inquiry that involves following feelings and emotions.
In 2021, I received an authorized online survey from the Church Correlation Research Division. It was so fascinating that I took screenshots of every single question and later had a back-and-forth discussion with Jana Riess on the issues. There were quite a few questions, but the most interesting one was this: “To what extent do the following issues bother you your diminish your experience in the church?” Here were some of the options:
1- The practice of polygamy during early days of the church
2- The Church’s teaching about women dressing modestly
3- Not knowing what happens after this life if a man remarries and is sealed to more than one woman
4- The amount of information available about Mother in Heaven
5- The Church’s policies regarding LGBTQ members
6- The number of women speakers in General Conference (other than in the Women’s Session)
7- The way that sexual intimacy is taught or addressed in church settings
8- Past policies that excluded black members from receiving the priesthood
9- The Church’s teachings about when to marry, start a family, or how many children to have
10- Any other teaching or practice that you find uncomfortable: (please specify)
The survey was long and there was a general comment section that I put a lot of effort into answering (too long to post here perhaps, but it’s really good I think). I also forwarded the answer to my stepfather who is the brother of a female LDS general authority currently serving.
While the democratic process may be categorized as a method of inquiry, I don’t think voting can ever establish truth, at least in the way I see truth. Voting is a means of expressing an opinion or making a decision. In my world, I look at truth as empirical (repeatable, reproducible, data-driven, falsifiable, etc.).
O Say, What Is Truth?
When the householder tells the Gestapo officer at the door that there are no Jews on his attic or anywhere on his property, but yet there are, I would say the householder is the most truthful, the most honest, the most virtuous, and the most holy person in those parts. Some would say he or she is a liar but the lying is justifiable, and some would say he or she is a liar and is not honoring and sustaining the law, but I say he or she is not a liar and is an entirely honest person who is full of truth.
My definition of truth may differ from that of some others.
ji – I would agree with this course of action. But in my view, I don’t think that this example changes definitionaly what is true per se. Rather, the omission of factual, truthful information in this hypothetical serves a higher moral and ethical purpose and represents the epitome of courage.
+1 to what josh h said.
I think the general sentiment is that while the more orthodox believers are capable of distinguishing between policy and doctrine, they treat obedience to the policy as a manifestation of obedience to higher principals. So it’s one in the same. David Bednar several years back told a story about how he counseled a young man to judge a girl he was dating by how many pairs of earrings she was wearing per ear. The young man dumped the girl for wearing too many earrings (surprise, surprise). He then gaslit the audience saying that the moral of the story was not about the earrings but a manifestation of obedience by not wearing more than one pair of earrings. (I simply couldn’t tell the difference in his talk).
On orthodoxy vs. pluralism, I think that the church, its leaders and members alike, are very orthodox, just perhaps in different ways than they used to be. Maybe there is not so much fixation on the three degrees of glory, but now there is greater fixation on wearing garments all the time. Decades ago, church leaders set in motion an orthodoxy train through its manuals. While it does occasional house keeping with the manuals, they are the ultimate source of information for most members of what is to be believed. For members will get callings and rely on the manuals to guide the class. They will go to class and read the manual beforehand. They will regurgitate the manual at class. The manuals tell members how and what to think, how to interpret the scriptures, what stories to find important, etc. They shape the overwhelming narrative and sentiment at church. Over the pulpit at conference, the leaders tell stories to reinforce what is taught in the manuals.
The members are indeed mostly on autopilot. While I haven’t been a member for 50 years like josh h, I’ve been hearing the same darn things said in Sunday School, Sacrament meeting, and Priesthood for over 30 years. I no longer attend the Saturday session of stake conference. But I don’t need anyone to attend for me to take notes, for I can pretty much guess what exactly was said at that “special” meeting. I can guess what is said at about every fireside. Just check the manuals.
I’m probably not the only Wheat and Tares reader whose spouse is degrees more TBM than I am. It can be a challenging path to navigate. For both of us. I report to my TBM spouse things that many readers here care about, like the number of female speakers at General Conference, the SEC ruling, church pleas to state Supreme Courts to not require priesthood leaders to be mandatory reporters of child sex abuse, and lately, the lds Church pushing boundaries encouraging members to express emotional comments at a few cities’ public hearings on steeple size and lighting up a dark sky. It does matter that the solid youth presence at the Heber City Temple purportedly in support of bright skies, was preceded by a written announcement that ice cream and pizza would be provided.
I’ve been doing some self-analysis. I think my hope is to help them see that there are different ways to view an issue. While I respect that they value the church. I also hope that they can maintain a sense of self apart from the institution, so that if they were ever asked to tearfully testify at a public hearing, or take employment as head of an illegal shell company, they could allow that part of their personal code of ethics to not be dominated by the institutional church’s.
How quickly we forget about the First Presidency vaccine endorsement of 2021! Suddenly legions of conservative “TBMs” had very particular thoughts on the distinction between doctrine and policy! For a brief moment there, we were *all* “nuanced” members.
We should’ve seen my coming, because when the “I Was a Stranger” initiative was rolled out in 2016 to help the Syrian refugees, the majority of conservative members promptly ignored it as mere policy, not doctrine, when they voted for the anti-Syrian refugee candidate a month later.
If most “TBMs” so-called do not draw a distinction between doctrine and policy, it is because they are not actually bothered by most of the Church’s policy. It’s not that they are on autopilot about the Church’s history of polygamy and racism, but that they are honestly unbothered by racism and polygamy! Likely because they are racists and wannabe polygamists themselves.
Cause seriously, if the First Presidency ever started preaching that the rich must sell all that they have and give to the poor or they shall in no wise enter the Kingdom of Heaven (you know, like Christ taught), we’d hear all about the distinction between doctrine and policy!
Thanks for the comments, everyone.
Southern Saint, nice example on the Manti temple episode. It is strange how the Church simply will never acknowledge that external commentary and feedback is taken into account by senior leadership when making or modifying or even reversing their decisions. And most of us think it is a good thing to take feedback into account. It’s not like they are deciding to take a bad course of action in response to feedback. They are obviously choosing to make a better decision because of the feedback.
josh h, “Most members are on auto-pilot.” Yes, that is partly true. If the recent SEC sanction episode taught us, it’s that most members won’t hold the Church or its leadership responsible for anything, however blatantly wrong or misguided. Love is blind, and Mormons really love the Church.
Jacob L, very interesting questions on the survey you received. Obviously, leadership wants info on what are perceived to be problematic issues, but they don’t want to publicly admit that problematic issues are, in fact, problems.
Brad D, I certainly agree that most lessons hit on the same set of basic themes and directives over and over. The series of manuals like “The Teachings of Brigham Young” and so forth for a dozen prior LDS presidents should have been titled, “Teachings of the Current Church, presented through selective quotations, carefully edited, from past presidents.”
Jacob L,
My hypothetical was not about “the omission of factual, truthful information” — rather, it was about a purposeful, deliberate, and assertive statement that might be seen as a lie by those who define “truth as empirical (repeatable, reproducible, data-driven, falsifiable, etc.).”
Thanks for the comments, everyone.
Jacob L deserves a longer reply. He said: “In my world, I look at truth as empirical (repeatable, reproducible, data-driven, falsifiable, etc.).” That is an understandable view and the one typically described as part of the scientific method. It has its appeal, but it is an ideal description that strips out the human element and the social process that is part of doing science. What is held out as naked empirical truth in a science field is, in fact, the mainstream accepted view (supported by data and an decent model) of a community of scientists in the field. There are individual scientists in the field with variant views, not accepted by peers, that don’t get into textbooks. Most of those variants, some rather fringe-ish, fall by the wayside. A very few turn out to garner more support over time and may eventually be accepted as truthful and displace the prior theory — when it is supported and affirmed as such (as truthful) by a majority of scientists in the field. Science is, in full description, a social process. Their voting is more refined than a democratic election, but it is a similar process.
I’m not saying that to denigrate science. Not at all. But invoking “science” does not give some sort of elevated access to truth (one that doesn’t work through human institutions and is dependent on human inquiry and reasoning and is subject to human bias and error) any more than Descarte’s clear and distinct ideas or LDS prayer confirmations or dreams. You can argue that science is better, over time, at self-correction than other social modes of inquiry, which is true.
Likewise, the LDS claim of revelation, say for Pres. Kimball’s revelation on priesthood and temple access forty years ago, is held out as sort of an elevated channel of truth. But, of course, Pres. Kimball didn’t just announce a revelation. He had to work with the other apostles, the others in the Big 15, and persuade them to agree with the revelation he presented them. It was a decision taken by a small community of leaders, not a privileged channel that stood on its own merits. There are, of course, other revelations to prophets in LDS history (in the eyes of LDS leadership, some authentic but not canonized, some spurious and not accepted at all like Pres. Taylor’s on the continuation of plural marriage). So even in the Church, with a very elevated claim of truth for revelations to the President and leader of the Church, revelation is not enough. It is mediated and approved by the other apostles or else it is not granted institutional approval.
This is, at any rate, how a Pragmatist would look at these claims. Human institutional details matter in what are held out or accepted as legitimate truth claims in various fields.
Dave B – Thank you for your response to my comment; I will respond to yours, but first I have to say that your comment with “science” in quotes made me think of Esqueleto from Nacho Libre (“I only believe in science!”). Great movie, that one!
I suppose what I was really getting at is that I think a fundamental error in the church is that spiritual knowledge is confused or treated like empirical knowledge. This is not surprising given Alma 32 when the text talks about experimenting upon the word. If someone claims to say they know that the church is true, that is categorically different than saying I know that water freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit. This is why I said the other day that reframing declarations of testimonies to “I believe” or “I hope” or “I have faith in” might be healthier and more intellectually (and spiritually) honest. Indeed, I think the example that lws329 shared of bearing her testimony is a pretty good example of what I think is a better way.
My main point is that I believe the two types of knowledge are separate and distinct and should not be conflated. But I am also drawing a distinction between the hard sciences and the social sciences. You emphasize the social process of acquiring knowledge and arriving at truth, but the laws of physics stand on their own. A method of inquiry or following aspects of the scientific method might be suitable for adoption social policy for a government or a church, but I don’t believe that a vote can ever establish truth. If a democratic majority of people in a room stand up and testify to the truthfulness of something, that doesn’t necessarily mean that what they are saying is the actual truth. There might be aspects of truth that are conditional or contextual (e.g. “This is my truth” or “This rings true for me”), but I view truth as being uncovered or discovered, not voted on. You mentioned LDS prayer confirmations or visions and Descartes’s contributions in the same sentence. For me (ironic that I’m saying this actually), I simply don’t mix the two sources of knowledge. I still try to glean my own personal value or create meaning from the spiritual expressions and faithful professions of others, but I don’t extrapolate them to a universal truth in the same way that I would with empirical data in the hard sciences.
ji – noted your point that the statement was not an omission, but deliberate false statement in the purpose of some greater good. To me, I would still label such a statement an untrue statement or lie. We might reasonably then proceed to a discussion as to under what circumstances telling a lie is morally justifiable and when the end justifies the means.
Yes, some would label the hypothetical householder’s statement as untrue or a lie, but I would say he or she is not a liar but is an entirely honest person who is full of truth.
We are using different definitions of the word truth. In dealing with matters of faith, I prefer to think of truth as fidelity to an original or standard; sincerity in action, character, and utterance; and fidelity and constancy (thanks to merriam-webster.com).
When our scriptures and tradition use the word truth, I think my definition of truth is much closer to those uses than more modern definitions. The modern definition of truth may not conform well to the use of the word truth in our scriptures and tradition.
I cited the hymn, O Say, What Is Truth? In that hymn’s usage, I think my definition also fits better. The OP pointed out different kinds of truth, and I want to add another.
On Sunday this week, The SL Tribune reported on a new book, Second Class Saints, by Dr. Matthew L. Harris. He was given access to the papers of SWK, McConkie, Hugh B Brown, & Joseph Fielding Smith.
Professor Harris talks about multiple things that led up to lifting the temple/priesthood ban on Black members of the church. And forces that delayed lifting the ban.
After the ban was lifted in 1978, “McConkie & Packer give firesides where they embellish how it happened. They say stuff like, ‘the [past] church presidents appeared to the Twelve on June 1st’.”
“Packer said Jesus himself ‘appeared and told us that we needed to lift the ban’.”
…
“When these otherworldly reports filtered back to Kimball, he was furious because that’s not what he said happened. And he didn’t think it needed to be embellished. … He said that ‘we want people to know, including the media, that the ban was changed because we listened to the Holy Ghost. It was the Holy Spirit that told us this is what needed to happen. There was no audible voice. There were no manifestations.”
…
Mark E. Petersen insisted that a disclaimer stating people still cannot marry interracially be published next to the priesthood revelation in the Deseret News.
Up into 2011 youth manuals still taught to marry within their own race. There was pushback , and it wasn’t until 2013 that the church officially repudiated that interracial marriage is a sin. They stopped printing Mormon Doctrine, by Bruce R. McConkie, in 2013.
Interesting to me how revelation and truth collided.
What does it mean to be true or to be false? ji is right in that truth, in English, originally did not mean correct–it mean faithful, as in faithful (obedient) to one’s liege lord or sovereign.
We are all familiar with the phrase from Polonius to his son Laertes when the latter was headed off to school in Paris: to thine own self be true. That’s how most folks read the scriptures, just one phrase or verse but nothing around. If we read the whole sentence, we get a better view of how Shakespeare used the words true and false: “This above all: to thine own self be true, / And it must follow, as the night the day / Thou canst not then be false to any man.” (Hamlet, Act 1, Scene 3) To be true is to be faithful and honest, not to science but to what one knows in one’s heart (here, Laertes was to remember his family, faith, and station, and his father was encouraging him to be loyal to his upbringing); to be false is to rebel against what one knows at one’s core. When Juliet asks Romeo if he loves her, she answers her own question: “I know thou wilt say ‘Ay,’ / And I will take thy word: yet if thou swear’st, / Thou mayst prove false.” (Romeo and Juliet, Act 2, Scene 2) Romeo’s potential false love doesn’t mean that his love itself is untrue, incorrect, or dead; it simply means that he, Romeo, might not remain true, meaning loyal.
God’s truth exists outside of men. In a church, the leaders decide what is taught to the members, and what a church decides to teach is that church’s doctrine. God’s truth and the church’s doctrine are the same thing. The important matter might be what one does with what one believes: is one true to what he believes, and is he true to what he promised, and is he true to his word? To answer the OP’s question, who decides, ultimately it is the individual.
We say that one of the Ten Commandments (eighth or ninth, depending on whose numbering we’re using) tells us not to lie. Does it, though? I don’t read Hebrew, but I can use a Strong’s Concordance (whether I use it well is a different question, as is whether Strong’s got it right). The commandment in Ex 20:16 isn’t Thou shalt not lie; it is Thou shalt not bear false witness. This is legal terminology. To bear false witness against a neighbor is to say something contrary to truth (however one defines that term) for the purpose of obtaining something improperly. When the very premise of a question is wholly improper, then is it improper to answer untruthfully? Rounding up Jews to kill them is improper, illegitimate, and contrary to God’s law regardless of the law of the land. The question, Are you hiding Jews in your attic? is unworthy of a correct or truthful answer. Does one lie when one responds incorrectly to a wholly illegitimate question? What about a question from a ward gossip and busybody? If a question comes from a busybody who has no legitimate reason to know, I would have no problem telling her an untruth, because I choose to be true to another’s privacy. Is that a lie? Does it violate the commandment? Must I turn in my temple recommend because I have not been honest in my dealings with my fellowmen? I think I would be on solid ground with God, even if not with the gossiper.
In an episode of Star Trek: Voyager, the Q are in civil war in which Captain Janeway and a few principals become involved. They see the conflict in an antebellum house with the combatants as Federal and Confederate soldiers using 1860s weapons and in blue and gray uniforms. The truth was that the Q were fighting among themselves; that truth was presented to the Voyager crew in a way that they could understand it. God’s ways are not our ways, and we cannot understand all things. What we teach as truth is adjusted, modified, presented, or packaged in a way so that we can understand, but it might not be the real truth itself. As God reveals more light and knowledge, our doctrines must change. Thus Christians in the New Testament, who had more light and knowledge than the Jews, had to have new representations of the truth. In other words, the same truth was presented with new doctrines. Sacrifices, eating pork, and circumcision, important teachings and practices, were no longer necessary, and new ways at looking at truth came forth. So too with the restoration beginning in 1820. We have to be careful about accepting the representation for the actual, and some doctrines will change as more light and knowledge is revealed. Doctrine changes even though truth remains steadfast. I cannot understand God’s ways, but I can respond to light, and I can have faith, and I can be true to what I believe. That’s why faith in Christ, and being true to that faith, is so important. Neither knowledge of truth, nor obedience to policies, will save my soul, but real faith can do that.
Q. Can you think of another LDS doctrine where a significant percentage, or even a majority, of LDS endorse a view that differs from the expert (leadership) position? A. I don’t think that most members accept that there is a 1:1 relationship in callings. When Mary is called to be a primary teacher, most people don’t believe that the call came from God. Most members accept that there are a dozen or more people who could have received the call. Sure, the bishopric received confirmation about calling Mary, but they would have received the same confirmation had they called any of the other dozen people. The same is true for all callings, including bishops, mission presidents, and into the apostolate. There may be times when the Lord intends for Mary, and only for Mary, to be called to that particular primary class, but most members think that this is more the exception than the rule; I do not think that most members find a one-to-one relationship for every calling in the church.
I do not think that most members find a one-to-one relationship for every calling in the church.
I am of the opinion that quite often callings are made more out of desperation than inspiration. When we were young newlyweds who lived in Murray, UT, we moved into an area primarily comprised of renters. For being in Salt Lake County, our condo building of 48 only had 6 member households on the rolls, only 3 of which were active. The bishop and the EQ president came over to visit us. The first question he asked was, “Do you own or rent?” As soon as he found out that we owned (and presumably wouldn’t be likely to move in 6-12 months), I was called to be the executive secretary.
“I am of the opinion that quite often callings are made more out of desperation than inspiration.”
I have often thought this way.
Who do you think is winning in the 2024 church Team Pluralism or Team Orthodoxy?
Very interesting question. I’d have to say it’s Team Orthodoxy if they represent the MAGA members because those with more open views seem to be dismissed culturally.
Sasso: “Up into 2011 youth manuals still taught to marry within their own race.”
Out of curiosity, what races did they recognize? For instance, would an Armenian have to marry another Armenian?
Z’lod, I believe the quote in the manuals was this one from Spencer Kimball (https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/spencer-w-kimball/marriage-divorce/):
It’s really interesting that most Church members really latched onto the idea of not marrying someone of another race (or religion), while pretty much completely overlooking the admonition to not marry outside of one’s own economic, social, or educational background. “You’re engaged to someone from a richer/poorer family that yourself? No problem. You’re dad worked as a contractor, and you’re engaged to a college professor? No problem. You’re white, and you’re engaged to someone with darker skin than yourself? Whoa. Hold on, now. Have you thought this through clearly? Let me show you this super important quote from President Kimball in the Sunday School manual!” My daughter is serving a mission in a foreign country right now (where their skin is darker than white), and she says that this Kimball quote is still very frequently used in lessons by the local members–something that she finds very frustrating.
As far as what races did the Church recognize, there’s this classic talk from Mark Peterson that sheds some light into what the Q15 thought about “race” in the mid-70s (https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Primary_sources/Mark_E._Petersen/Race_Problems_-_As_They_Affect_the_Church):
Peterson doesn’t mention Armenians specifically, but given what he does say, I suspect he would indeed want Armenians to marry Armenians–especially since Armenians tend to have darker skin that Peterson’s northern European ancestors. I don’t even know what to make of the “prophesying, seeing, and revelating” of the Q15 in the 1900s other than to say their views on race were just plain screwed up. It’s a perfect example of why members should absolutely not just “follow the prophet”.