There’s a story I once read on the Church’s website that I still think about from time to time. In the story, a high school student was upset that her science teacher expected them to learn about evolution. She went to the teacher distraught about being persecuted for her religious beliefs, bore her testimony, and the teacher told her how much he admired her principled stand. She then felt vindicated and left on cloud nine, thinking that she was right all along. As the kids say, of all the things that never happened, this story never happened the most.

Here’s another story that never sat right with me. In the Book of Mormon, Korihor is fighting against the Christians, but eventually after they physically attack him and bind him and are ready to murder him, he admits that he believed in God all along. Even though he had accused church leaders of deception, he was the deceptive one believing the devil’s carnally pleasing lies. He is then cast out and eventually killed. (Putting the lie the statement that “there was no law against a man’s belief” Alma 30:7). Apparently it’s not illegal to be an atheist, but if people murder you for it you won’t be protected, and besides, being an atheist was just you lying anyway–and who tells people they don’t believe in God but apparently they do believe in devils (?). This story is extremely self-serving and frankly bonkers.

This type of storytelling is particularly prevalent in Christianity, but it applies to many ideological communities. Have you been served videos of repentant MAGA voters by the algorithm like I have? If you are anti-abortion, you may have heard a story of an abortion doctor who had an experience that completely changed his or her perspective and now they are tearfully pro-life.

Are these stories fake? Sometimes, maybe even usually. They are important in terms of validating us psychologically and socially, and they follow a pattern:

“An atheist / scientist / liberal / professor / celebrity looked closely at Christianity and finally admitted that Christians are right.”

The truth of these stories is that they are usually one or more of the following things:

  • exaggerated
  • selectively edited
  • based on rumors
  • stripped of nuance
  • completely fabricated

The psychological relief they provide to believers are as follows:

  • “Our beliefs are intellectually respectable.”
  • “Even critics secretly know we’re right.”
  • “We are morally vindicated.”
  • “Opposition to us is unfair and disingenuous.”

These types of stories are far more psychologically validating than stories about insiders who believe. They illustrate (whether true or not) that:

  • outsiders validate the group
  • the group is morally heroic
  • critics are confused or dishonest

These narratives also include miracle stories, persecution stories, “former atheist” narratives, testimony bearing, near-death experiences, and stories of elite experts (in various fields) affirming faith. The more the affirmation is seen as coming from outsiders, the more valuable it is because it not only bolsters the belief but undercuts the criticism of that belief. While believers may find these stories uplifting and encouraging, they also have some downsides when they are used to:

  • avoid engaging serious criticism.
  • replace evidence with emotional anecdotes
  • shield beliefs from scrutiny
  • create the illusion of intellectual victory where none exists

Another story that you may recall in light of this description is the story of Martin Harris bringing Dr. Anton the characters from the gold plates to verify their authenticity as ancient writing, bolstering the value of the Book of Mormon as authentic. In the LDS version of this story, Dr. Anthon affirms that the characters are ancient, but then when he realizes the purpose of the authentification is for an additional book of scripture, he tears up the certificate. You can read more about the story here, but the gist of it is that Dr. Anthon’s version of the story is quite different than the one we all heard in seminary. He claimed on three different occasions that he told Harris the characters were a fraudulent imitation, not authentically ancient, although in one version he said he gave Harris a pity authentification, then took it back. This version most closely resembles the story we’ve heard.

Going back to the story that I started with, I can imagine a situation where a Christian student with a developing teen brain is emotional and upset that she thinks her beliefs conflict with what the science teacher is teaching (nevermind the fact that BYU teaches evolution–another reason this story should not have been on the church’s website!). She approaches the teacher in tears, feeling like she has to defend her beliefs and not understanding the science (and maybe not even the doctrines she’s defending). The teacher, who is trained to support students and help them learn, is kind to her and treats her with dignity and understanding and does not tear down her faith. She still doesn’t have a clue what evolution is, but takes his kindness as validation that she was right. That’s a version of this story that I believe could have happened.

The trick with these types of stories is to determine if they are being told to encourage inquiry or to shut it down (by treating the outsider / critical viewpoint as knowingly in error). When stories become substitutes for evidence or tools to avoid difficult questions, they stop functioning as a testimony and start functioning as ideological insulation.

  • Have you heard these types of stories?
  • Do you find these types of stories suspect or have you believed them at face value when they supported your viewpoint?
  • Can you think of some examples (from any facet of life) of these types of stories?

Discuss.