I feel like a lot of my life has been taken from me by the church, and although I view trying to help people out of the church as a good thing, the cost of my own time continues to accumulate. I'm taking the final steps to take my life back.
I'm moving into the phase known as "post-Mormonism" in which I don't talk about the church and don't think about the church. I'm not completely indifferent. When people ask me about the church, I'll be candid with them. When the church gets into politics I will still take issue with that. But, I'm moving on.
So, I won't be posting here anymore, but of course I'll leave everything up as it is.
Sunday, November 11, 2012
Monday, July 30, 2012
But how could Joseph have known ____?
This is an often-used counterargument to evidence against the divine origin of the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, etc. Take a look at this recent article, for example, in which apologist Daniel Peterson uses it (and twists some of the evidence to support his conclusions.) Hugh Nibley employed a similar strategy of looking for historical events and cultural practices that line up (often spuriously) with LDS claims, and then claiming that Joseph couldn't have known about them, so he must have been inspired.
Essentially, this kind of argument is a way of side-stepping contradictory evidence because you just can't fathom how Joseph could come up with something like the Book of Mormon out of whole cloth. This is a fallacy, as it assumes that if the Book of Mormon isn't divinely inspired, then the only other option is that he made it up himself, with no help. In actuality, there are plenty of sources he could have gotten much of the Book of Mormon from. It's not my job to explain where it came from; if it's logically inconsistent with our world, then it's clearly not historical, and I'm not obligated to speculate on its origin any further.
Still, such arguments are flawed in another fundamental way: they lack a null hypothesis. If you're going to argue that Joseph got an unusually high proportion of "hits" or things he couldn't possibly have known himself, you need a standard of comparison. Even a blatant con could expect to get things right or "almost" right here and there. You'd need to know that Joseph got more things incidentally right than a known conman could expect to get, on average, were the conman to attempt to create a pseudo-religious document. Without this information, you're just showing that you don't know much about cons, the ability of some people to pull them off, and our general capacity as human beings to be duped.
Take, for example, the curious case of Frank Abignale, the man portrayed by Leonardo DiCaprio in Catch Me if You Can. This man is famous for writing fraudulent checks and later conning his way into jobs as an airline pilot, a medical doctor, a lawyer, a professor of history at BYU, and many others.
Now, consider the high frequency of "hits" Frank would've had to use to get these jobs. A case could be made that Frank actually was an M.D., a lawyer, etc. (he actually passed the bar exam in Louisiana!) simply because he knew enough to pose as them. Such a claim would be absolutely ludicrous, but equally so is the claim that Joseph Smith, who clearly mistranslated the Book of Abraham, got enough "hits" or "near hits" that he must've been right about everything else, ignoring the fact that he was provably wrong.
There's also Mark Hofmann, whose skill at forgery and ability to invent documents that mimicked early church history was sufficient to fool the first presidency of the church into buying his creations and then defending them publicly. Eventually, of course, everyone learned that Hofman's creations were not historical. Yet, clearly there were enough "hits" in the content that top leadership deemed them credible.
For other examples, take a look at these amazing feats. How easy would it be to argue that none of these things could have happened without direct divine intervention?
This style of argument is common, because it provides a way to avoid dealing with uncomfortable evidence directly, and it seems to be highly effective. Many Mormons seem to be sold on the idea that Joseph couldn't possibly have invented the Book of Mormon or Book of Abraham (even with help from his contemporaries.) Then again, Mormon-dominated Utah also seems to have an amazingly high tolerance of multi-level marketing business models, so maybe it would be helpful to start demanding a higher standard of proof before extending trust.
Essentially, this kind of argument is a way of side-stepping contradictory evidence because you just can't fathom how Joseph could come up with something like the Book of Mormon out of whole cloth. This is a fallacy, as it assumes that if the Book of Mormon isn't divinely inspired, then the only other option is that he made it up himself, with no help. In actuality, there are plenty of sources he could have gotten much of the Book of Mormon from. It's not my job to explain where it came from; if it's logically inconsistent with our world, then it's clearly not historical, and I'm not obligated to speculate on its origin any further.
Still, such arguments are flawed in another fundamental way: they lack a null hypothesis. If you're going to argue that Joseph got an unusually high proportion of "hits" or things he couldn't possibly have known himself, you need a standard of comparison. Even a blatant con could expect to get things right or "almost" right here and there. You'd need to know that Joseph got more things incidentally right than a known conman could expect to get, on average, were the conman to attempt to create a pseudo-religious document. Without this information, you're just showing that you don't know much about cons, the ability of some people to pull them off, and our general capacity as human beings to be duped.
Take, for example, the curious case of Frank Abignale, the man portrayed by Leonardo DiCaprio in Catch Me if You Can. This man is famous for writing fraudulent checks and later conning his way into jobs as an airline pilot, a medical doctor, a lawyer, a professor of history at BYU, and many others.
Now, consider the high frequency of "hits" Frank would've had to use to get these jobs. A case could be made that Frank actually was an M.D., a lawyer, etc. (he actually passed the bar exam in Louisiana!) simply because he knew enough to pose as them. Such a claim would be absolutely ludicrous, but equally so is the claim that Joseph Smith, who clearly mistranslated the Book of Abraham, got enough "hits" or "near hits" that he must've been right about everything else, ignoring the fact that he was provably wrong.
There's also Mark Hofmann, whose skill at forgery and ability to invent documents that mimicked early church history was sufficient to fool the first presidency of the church into buying his creations and then defending them publicly. Eventually, of course, everyone learned that Hofman's creations were not historical. Yet, clearly there were enough "hits" in the content that top leadership deemed them credible.
For other examples, take a look at these amazing feats. How easy would it be to argue that none of these things could have happened without direct divine intervention?
This style of argument is common, because it provides a way to avoid dealing with uncomfortable evidence directly, and it seems to be highly effective. Many Mormons seem to be sold on the idea that Joseph couldn't possibly have invented the Book of Mormon or Book of Abraham (even with help from his contemporaries.) Then again, Mormon-dominated Utah also seems to have an amazingly high tolerance of multi-level marketing business models, so maybe it would be helpful to start demanding a higher standard of proof before extending trust.
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Mormons and moon people: are modern prophets trustworthy?
In Oliver B. Huntington's journal, he quotes Brigham Young as saying the following:
"The inhabitants of the moon are more of a uniform size than the inhabitants of the earth, being six feet in height. They dress very much like the Quaker style and are quite general in style or fashion of dress. They live to be very old; coming generally near a thousand years. This is the description of them as given by Joseph the Seer, and he could see whatever he asked the Father in the name of Jesus to see."
Huntington's patriarchal blessing also mentioned that he would "have power with God even to translate thyself to Heaven, & preach to the inhabitants of the moon or planets, if it shall be expedient."
See: http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith_and_moonmen
Pretty silly. Obviously we know today that the moon is not inhabited. Now, to be fair: Joseph and Brigham and other early church members were not the only people who thought that there were people on the moon - it was a widely held opinion at the time, even backed by some scientists. So, Joseph and Brigham were simply products of their time in this respect.
I don't hold their incorrect belief against them, because they had no way of knowing that the moon was not inhabited. The troubling part is the fact that, not only did they teach that there were people on the moon (and sun) but they actually described them in rather meticulous detail. Manner of dress. Average height. Unusually long lifespan. Since these moon people don't actually exist, how could they possibly go into so much detail?
At this point, knowing what we know now, it seems very much like we've caught a 5-year-old in a fantastical lie.
In summary: the problem isn't that Brigham thought there might be people on the moon. It's that he described them. He didn't make a good faith mistake. He lied.
There are other events in church history that are similarly troubling. One is the Greek psalter incident. The short version: a Professor Henry Caswall claims that, to attempt to uncover Joseph Smith as a fraud, he brought to him a Greek psalter (collection of psalms) and asked what it was. Joseph affirmatively responded that it was a "dictionary of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics."
As recounted by Caswall, Willard Richards later came to him and said that "sometimes Mr. Smith speaks as a prophet, and sometimes as a mere man. If he gave a wrong opinion respecting the book, he spoke as a mere man."
Caswall's reply:
"Whether he spoke as a prophet or as a mere man, he has committed himself, for he has said what is not true. If he spoke as a prophet, therefore, he is a false prophet. If he spoke as a mere man, he cannot be trusted, for he spoke positively and like an oracle respecting that which he knew nothing."
The point I'm trying to make here is the same as Caswall's. If he didn't know what it was, why did he speak as if he did? It's misleading and dishonest at best.
One more example: as recorded in History of the Church, Joseph Smith prophesied the following: "the coming of the Lord...is nigh - even fifty-six years should wind up the scene." This was in 1835, so that would mean "the scene should be wound up by 1891." Was Joseph giving his opinion? If so, why was it so incredibly specific? 56 years is an oddly precise "opinion" to have.
To illustrate my problem with this, let me contrast these examples with what I would do. If you ask me when America will have its first female president, I can't answer you definitively because I simply don't know. So, being an honest person, I will do one of two things: I will either say "I don't know," or I will say something like "I imagine it will happen within the next 20 years." If I were to say "it will happen within 37 years," that would be an oddly and inappropriately specific pronouncement that is not merited by my knowledge. Wouldn't it be strange if my "opinion" was that we would have a female president "within 37 years?" Being an honest person, when I express my opinion, I don't dress it up as fact or prophecy.
Moon people, a Greek psalter, and the second coming. Hopefully you can see my point here. If prophets sometimes don't speak as prophets, why do they always act like they are speaking as prophets? And if you can later demonstrate that something a prophet said "positively, like an oracle" is absolutely false, how are you to trust everything else they say? How can you trust someone who declares something so specific without the slightest hint of doubt when they clearly know nothing about it? Why wouldn't they just humbly admit that they have no idea whether there are people on the moon or what those moon people look like?
At the very least, Mormon leaders should exercise a little more humility when talking about things they don't know anything about.
"The inhabitants of the moon are more of a uniform size than the inhabitants of the earth, being six feet in height. They dress very much like the Quaker style and are quite general in style or fashion of dress. They live to be very old; coming generally near a thousand years. This is the description of them as given by Joseph the Seer, and he could see whatever he asked the Father in the name of Jesus to see."
Huntington's patriarchal blessing also mentioned that he would "have power with God even to translate thyself to Heaven, & preach to the inhabitants of the moon or planets, if it shall be expedient."
See: http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith_and_moonmen
Pretty silly. Obviously we know today that the moon is not inhabited. Now, to be fair: Joseph and Brigham and other early church members were not the only people who thought that there were people on the moon - it was a widely held opinion at the time, even backed by some scientists. So, Joseph and Brigham were simply products of their time in this respect.
I don't hold their incorrect belief against them, because they had no way of knowing that the moon was not inhabited. The troubling part is the fact that, not only did they teach that there were people on the moon (and sun) but they actually described them in rather meticulous detail. Manner of dress. Average height. Unusually long lifespan. Since these moon people don't actually exist, how could they possibly go into so much detail?
At this point, knowing what we know now, it seems very much like we've caught a 5-year-old in a fantastical lie.
In summary: the problem isn't that Brigham thought there might be people on the moon. It's that he described them. He didn't make a good faith mistake. He lied.
There are other events in church history that are similarly troubling. One is the Greek psalter incident. The short version: a Professor Henry Caswall claims that, to attempt to uncover Joseph Smith as a fraud, he brought to him a Greek psalter (collection of psalms) and asked what it was. Joseph affirmatively responded that it was a "dictionary of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics."
As recounted by Caswall, Willard Richards later came to him and said that "sometimes Mr. Smith speaks as a prophet, and sometimes as a mere man. If he gave a wrong opinion respecting the book, he spoke as a mere man."
Caswall's reply:
"Whether he spoke as a prophet or as a mere man, he has committed himself, for he has said what is not true. If he spoke as a prophet, therefore, he is a false prophet. If he spoke as a mere man, he cannot be trusted, for he spoke positively and like an oracle respecting that which he knew nothing."
The point I'm trying to make here is the same as Caswall's. If he didn't know what it was, why did he speak as if he did? It's misleading and dishonest at best.
One more example: as recorded in History of the Church, Joseph Smith prophesied the following: "the coming of the Lord...is nigh - even fifty-six years should wind up the scene." This was in 1835, so that would mean "the scene should be wound up by 1891." Was Joseph giving his opinion? If so, why was it so incredibly specific? 56 years is an oddly precise "opinion" to have.
To illustrate my problem with this, let me contrast these examples with what I would do. If you ask me when America will have its first female president, I can't answer you definitively because I simply don't know. So, being an honest person, I will do one of two things: I will either say "I don't know," or I will say something like "I imagine it will happen within the next 20 years." If I were to say "it will happen within 37 years," that would be an oddly and inappropriately specific pronouncement that is not merited by my knowledge. Wouldn't it be strange if my "opinion" was that we would have a female president "within 37 years?" Being an honest person, when I express my opinion, I don't dress it up as fact or prophecy.
Moon people, a Greek psalter, and the second coming. Hopefully you can see my point here. If prophets sometimes don't speak as prophets, why do they always act like they are speaking as prophets? And if you can later demonstrate that something a prophet said "positively, like an oracle" is absolutely false, how are you to trust everything else they say? How can you trust someone who declares something so specific without the slightest hint of doubt when they clearly know nothing about it? Why wouldn't they just humbly admit that they have no idea whether there are people on the moon or what those moon people look like?
At the very least, Mormon leaders should exercise a little more humility when talking about things they don't know anything about.
Sunday, July 1, 2012
What is the LDS church's stance on evolution?
Mormon beliefs on evolution vary. There are millions of Mormons; some are scientists, some are professors, and many are just intelligent people who accept the evidence before them that shows that the biodiversity we see today emerged through the process of natural selection over a period of millions of years.
Faithful members that accept evolution will often say that the LDS church has no "official" stance or policy regarding evolution, so they're free to believe what they want. However, take a look at the following troubling figure from a Pew Research study:
It's clear that Mormons tend to accept evolution at a rate much lower than other religious groups. The percentage is less than half of the national average! This can't just be a coincidence, and I don't believe it is. It is clear to me that the Church is far from supportive of the concept of evolution through natural selection, and the statistics here show that something about church membership leads to a lower probability of acceptance of evolution, whether the church has an "official stance" on the matter or not.
(I couldn't find the exact phrasing of the question, but if it's anything like the title of the graph, I think it could have been worded better. Still, all groups were presented with the same question, so the fact that Mormons are so far below the rest is still very significant.)
Let's take a look at what past presidents of the church have said and classify their statements in three ways: explicitly against evolution, explictly for evolution, or unclear or not taking a position. We'll ignore Joseph Smith because he just wasn't aware of Darwin, and Brigham Young because, well, he was prone to rambling on anything and everything, and everyone always ignores Brigham Young.
Statements by presidents of the church
John Taylor: "The animal and vegetable creations are governed by certain laws, and are composed of certain elements peculiar to themselves. This applies to man, to the beasts, fowls, fish and creeping things, to the insects and to all animated nature .... These principles do not change, as represented by evolutionists of the Darwinian school, but the primitive organisms of all living beings exist in the same form as when they first received their impress from the Maker. ... [Man] did not originate from a chaotic mass of matter, moving or inert, but came forth possessing, in an embryonic state, all the faculties and powers of a God."
Wilford Woodruff: this is not very explicit, but in 1877, Wilford Woodruff had a vision of the founding fathers and "other eminent men and women." Included in these "eminent men" was Louis Agassiz, a scientist who was a prominent contemporary critic of Darwin and proponent of Biblical creationism.
Lorenzo Snow: "As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become."
Joseph F. Smith: he made a few wishy-washy statements, but mostly denounced evolution, most famously in this First Presidency statement (1909). The whole thing is worth reading, but here's a sample:
"It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men... Man began life as a human being, in the likeness of our Heavenly Father. True it is that the body of man enters upon its career as a tiny germ embryo, which becomes an infant, quickened at a certain stage by the spirit whose tabernacle it is, and the child, after being born, develops into a man. There is nothing in this, however, to indicate that the original man, the first of our race, began life as anything less than a man, or less than the human germ or embryo that becomes a man."
According to the Ensign reprint in 2002, this statement "expresses the Church’s doctrinal position on these matters." As an official First Presidency statement, it's the most authoritative thing we have from the LDS church so far.
Soon after the statement, he clarified that "the church itself has no philosophy about the modus operandi employed by the Lord in His creation of the world" and "Our religion is not hostile to real science. That which is demonstrated, we accept with joy; but vain philosophy, human theory and mere speculations of men, we do not accept nor do we adopt anything contrary to divine revelation or to good common sense. But everything that tends to right conduct, that harmonizes with sound morality and increases faith in Deity, finds favor with us not matter where it may be found." But, he himself, through the office of the First Presidency, taught that it was incorrect.
Heber J. Grant: made a statement called "'Mormon' view of evolution" which is not very explicit.
George Albert Smith: “I am grateful that in the midst of the confusion of our Father’s children there has been given to the members of this great organization a sure knowledge of the origin of man, that we came from the spirit world where our spirits were begotten by our Father in heaven, that he formed our first parents from the dust of the earth, and that their spirits were placed in their bodies, and that man came, not as some have believed, not as some have preferred to believe, from some of the lower walks of life, but our ancestors were those beings who lived in the courts of heaven. We came not from some menial order of life, but our ancestor is God our heavenly Father.”
David O. McKay: "There is a perpetual design permeating all purposes of creation. On this thought, science again leads a student up to a certain point and sometimes leaves him with his soul unanchored... For example, evolution's beautiful theory of the creation of the world offers many perplexing problems to the inquiring mind. Inevitably, a teacher who denies divine agency in creation, who insists there is no intelligent purpose in it, will impress the student with the thought that all may be chance. I say, that no youth should be so led without a counterbalancing thought ... God is at the helm. God is the Creator of the earth."
While clearly a proponent of what would today be called "intelligent design" (which is clearly different from natural selection), McKay spoke about, but did not take a strong position on, evolution, but did suggest that science "sometimes leaves [one] with [their] soul unanchored."
Joseph Fielding Smith: a quote from his book, Doctrines of Salvation: "I say most emphatically, you cannot believe in this theory of the origin of man, and at the same time accept the plan of salvation as set forth by the Lord our God. You must choose the one and reject the other, for they are in direct conflict and there is a gulf separating them which is so great that it cannot be bridged, no matter how much one may try to do so."
Harold B. Lee: "I was somewhat sorrowed recently to hear someone, a sister who comes from a church family, ask, “What about the pre-Adamic people?” Here was someone who I thought was fully grounded in the faith.
I asked. “What about the pre-Adamic people?”
She replied, “Well, aren’t there evidences that people preceded the Adamic period of the earth?”
I said, “Have you forgotten the scripture that says, ‘And I, the Lord God, formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also. …’ ” (Moses 3:7.) I asked, “Do you believe that?”
She wondered about the creation because she had read the theories of the scientists, and the question that she was really asking was: How do you reconcile science with religion? The answer must be, If science is not true, you cannot reconcile truth with error."
(First Presidency message, 1972)
Spencer W. Kimball: "We don't know exactly how [Adam and Eve's] coming into this world happened, and when we're able to understand it the Lord will tell us."
Ezra Taft Benson: "As a watchman on the tower, I feel to warn you that one of the chief means of misleading our youth and destroying the family unit is our educational institutions. There is more than one reason why the Church is advising our youth to attend colleges close to their homes where institutes of religion are available. It gives the parents the opportunity to stay close to their children, and if they become alerted and informed, these parents can help expose some of the deceptions of men like ... Charles Darwin."
Howard W. Hunter: "The Old Testament unfolds the story of the creation of the earth and mankind by God. Should we now disregard this account and modernize the creation according to the theories of the modernists? Can we say there was no Garden of Eden or an Adam and Eve? Because modernists now declare the story of the flood is unreasonable and impossible, should we disbelieve the account of Noah and the flood as related in the Old Testament? Let us examine what the Master said when the disciples came to him as he sat on the Mount of Olives. They asked him to tell them of the time of his coming and of the end of the world. Jesus answered: “But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.” In this statement the Master confirmed the story of the flood without modernizing it. Can we accept some of the statements of the Lord as being true and at the same time reject others as being false? When Martha heard that Jesus was coming, she went out to meet him, and they discussed the matter of the death of her brother and the resurrection. Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live.” Both of these statements, the one regarding Noah and the fact of the flood and the one in which he declared himself to be the resurrection and the life, were made by the Lord. How can we believe one and not the other? How can we modernize the story of the flood, or refer to it as a myth, and yet cling to the truth of the other? How can we modernize the Bible and still have it be a guiding light to us and a vital influence in our beliefs? There are those who declare it is old-fashioned to believe in the Bible. Is it old-fashioned to believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God? Is it old-fashioned to believe in his atoning sacrifice and the resurrection? If it is, I declare myself to be old-fashioned and the Church to be old-fashioned. In great simplicity, the Master taught the principles of life eternal and lessons that bring happiness to those with the faith to believe.”
Gordon B. Hinckley: it's hard to classify Hinckley because he often made unhelpful statements like "I am not concerned with organic evolution. I do not worry about it. I passed through that argument long ago" that don't help us in determining whether he accepted evolution or not. My decision to color him red comes from this: "I believe in evolution, not organic evolution, as it is called, but in the evolution of the mind, the heart, and the soul of man. I believe in improvement. I believe in growth."
Thomas S. Monson: Monson is also somewhat on the fence, but the general theme of the following statement (which he's repeated multiple times in various settings, including a First Presidency message and in general conference) is belief in the Bible over "so-called science": "I acknowledge that I do not understand the processes of creation, but I accept the fact of it. I grant that I cannot explain the miracles of the Bible, and I do not attempt to do so, but I accept God's word. I wasn't with Joseph, but I believe him. My faith did not come to me through science, and I will not permit so-called science to destroy it."
Other references to evolution by materials printed by the church
The 1909 first presidency statement by Joseph F. Smith was reprinted in the February 2002 Ensign. While the statement is old, this suggests continued support of the principles it taught.
The Old Testament study manual: "In the world another theory of how things began is popularly held and widely taught. This theory, that of organic evolution, was generally developed from the writings of Charles Darwin. It puts forth different ideas concerning how life began and where man came from. In relation to this theory, the following statements should help you understand what the Church teaches about the Creation and the origin of man." (It then quotes statements that denounce evolution by Joseph F. Smith, George Albert Smith, and others.)
Conclusion
A collection of other quotes by LDS leaders that were not president of the church at the time can be found here.
You'll notice a lot of red and purple but no blue. The LDS church has never publicly come out in support of evolution as some other churches have done. Whether or not any of the statements constitute "official doctrine" is not a productive discussion. It's clear that, official or not, the message sent by the church consistently leads members to deny evolution, resulting in a membership with a very low rate of scientific literacy compared to the rest of the country.
A minority of Mormons do accept the reality of evolution (BYU does have a Biology department, after all.) Others believe that evolution applies to plant and animal life but not humans, which to me (a biologist) is an untenable position due to the obvious similarity and shared evolutionary history between humans, earlier hominids and other primates. No one has to follow the teachings of church leadership, though I do think it raises the question of why the church would consistently teach and support a viewpoint that is incorrect, misleading the majority of the membership on an interesting and important question.
If you find any further evidence (particularly anything that could be classified as explicitly supporting evolution), please let me know, and I'll add it to this list.
Note: the caption of the Pew graph is "% who agree that evolution is the best explanation for the origins of human life on earth." I tried to find out whether this was the way they worded the question on the survey, but couldn't determine the exact wording used. If it is, it's not how I would have worded it; it's misleading, and some religious people that try to balance evolution and religion may answer no because they feel that the "best" explanation has to include god.
Still, this doesn't warrant throwing out the survey results entirely. People from any religious group taking the survey would have faced the same dilemma. The fact that Mormons are so dramatically below everyone else is still significant.
Faithful members that accept evolution will often say that the LDS church has no "official" stance or policy regarding evolution, so they're free to believe what they want. However, take a look at the following troubling figure from a Pew Research study:
It's clear that Mormons tend to accept evolution at a rate much lower than other religious groups. The percentage is less than half of the national average! This can't just be a coincidence, and I don't believe it is. It is clear to me that the Church is far from supportive of the concept of evolution through natural selection, and the statistics here show that something about church membership leads to a lower probability of acceptance of evolution, whether the church has an "official stance" on the matter or not.
(I couldn't find the exact phrasing of the question, but if it's anything like the title of the graph, I think it could have been worded better. Still, all groups were presented with the same question, so the fact that Mormons are so far below the rest is still very significant.)
Let's take a look at what past presidents of the church have said and classify their statements in three ways: explicitly against evolution, explictly for evolution, or unclear or not taking a position. We'll ignore Joseph Smith because he just wasn't aware of Darwin, and Brigham Young because, well, he was prone to rambling on anything and everything, and everyone always ignores Brigham Young.
Statements by presidents of the church
John Taylor: "The animal and vegetable creations are governed by certain laws, and are composed of certain elements peculiar to themselves. This applies to man, to the beasts, fowls, fish and creeping things, to the insects and to all animated nature .... These principles do not change, as represented by evolutionists of the Darwinian school, but the primitive organisms of all living beings exist in the same form as when they first received their impress from the Maker. ... [Man] did not originate from a chaotic mass of matter, moving or inert, but came forth possessing, in an embryonic state, all the faculties and powers of a God."
Wilford Woodruff: this is not very explicit, but in 1877, Wilford Woodruff had a vision of the founding fathers and "other eminent men and women." Included in these "eminent men" was Louis Agassiz, a scientist who was a prominent contemporary critic of Darwin and proponent of Biblical creationism.
Lorenzo Snow: "As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become."
Joseph F. Smith: he made a few wishy-washy statements, but mostly denounced evolution, most famously in this First Presidency statement (1909). The whole thing is worth reading, but here's a sample:
"It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men... Man began life as a human being, in the likeness of our Heavenly Father. True it is that the body of man enters upon its career as a tiny germ embryo, which becomes an infant, quickened at a certain stage by the spirit whose tabernacle it is, and the child, after being born, develops into a man. There is nothing in this, however, to indicate that the original man, the first of our race, began life as anything less than a man, or less than the human germ or embryo that becomes a man."
According to the Ensign reprint in 2002, this statement "expresses the Church’s doctrinal position on these matters." As an official First Presidency statement, it's the most authoritative thing we have from the LDS church so far.
Soon after the statement, he clarified that "the church itself has no philosophy about the modus operandi employed by the Lord in His creation of the world" and "Our religion is not hostile to real science. That which is demonstrated, we accept with joy; but vain philosophy, human theory and mere speculations of men, we do not accept nor do we adopt anything contrary to divine revelation or to good common sense. But everything that tends to right conduct, that harmonizes with sound morality and increases faith in Deity, finds favor with us not matter where it may be found." But, he himself, through the office of the First Presidency, taught that it was incorrect.
Heber J. Grant: made a statement called "'Mormon' view of evolution" which is not very explicit.
George Albert Smith: “I am grateful that in the midst of the confusion of our Father’s children there has been given to the members of this great organization a sure knowledge of the origin of man, that we came from the spirit world where our spirits were begotten by our Father in heaven, that he formed our first parents from the dust of the earth, and that their spirits were placed in their bodies, and that man came, not as some have believed, not as some have preferred to believe, from some of the lower walks of life, but our ancestors were those beings who lived in the courts of heaven. We came not from some menial order of life, but our ancestor is God our heavenly Father.”
David O. McKay: "There is a perpetual design permeating all purposes of creation. On this thought, science again leads a student up to a certain point and sometimes leaves him with his soul unanchored... For example, evolution's beautiful theory of the creation of the world offers many perplexing problems to the inquiring mind. Inevitably, a teacher who denies divine agency in creation, who insists there is no intelligent purpose in it, will impress the student with the thought that all may be chance. I say, that no youth should be so led without a counterbalancing thought ... God is at the helm. God is the Creator of the earth."
While clearly a proponent of what would today be called "intelligent design" (which is clearly different from natural selection), McKay spoke about, but did not take a strong position on, evolution, but did suggest that science "sometimes leaves [one] with [their] soul unanchored."
Joseph Fielding Smith: a quote from his book, Doctrines of Salvation: "I say most emphatically, you cannot believe in this theory of the origin of man, and at the same time accept the plan of salvation as set forth by the Lord our God. You must choose the one and reject the other, for they are in direct conflict and there is a gulf separating them which is so great that it cannot be bridged, no matter how much one may try to do so."
Harold B. Lee: "I was somewhat sorrowed recently to hear someone, a sister who comes from a church family, ask, “What about the pre-Adamic people?” Here was someone who I thought was fully grounded in the faith.
I asked. “What about the pre-Adamic people?”
She replied, “Well, aren’t there evidences that people preceded the Adamic period of the earth?”
I said, “Have you forgotten the scripture that says, ‘And I, the Lord God, formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also. …’ ” (Moses 3:7.) I asked, “Do you believe that?”
She wondered about the creation because she had read the theories of the scientists, and the question that she was really asking was: How do you reconcile science with religion? The answer must be, If science is not true, you cannot reconcile truth with error."
(First Presidency message, 1972)
Spencer W. Kimball: "We don't know exactly how [Adam and Eve's] coming into this world happened, and when we're able to understand it the Lord will tell us."
Ezra Taft Benson: "As a watchman on the tower, I feel to warn you that one of the chief means of misleading our youth and destroying the family unit is our educational institutions. There is more than one reason why the Church is advising our youth to attend colleges close to their homes where institutes of religion are available. It gives the parents the opportunity to stay close to their children, and if they become alerted and informed, these parents can help expose some of the deceptions of men like ... Charles Darwin."
Howard W. Hunter: "The Old Testament unfolds the story of the creation of the earth and mankind by God. Should we now disregard this account and modernize the creation according to the theories of the modernists? Can we say there was no Garden of Eden or an Adam and Eve? Because modernists now declare the story of the flood is unreasonable and impossible, should we disbelieve the account of Noah and the flood as related in the Old Testament? Let us examine what the Master said when the disciples came to him as he sat on the Mount of Olives. They asked him to tell them of the time of his coming and of the end of the world. Jesus answered: “But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.” In this statement the Master confirmed the story of the flood without modernizing it. Can we accept some of the statements of the Lord as being true and at the same time reject others as being false? When Martha heard that Jesus was coming, she went out to meet him, and they discussed the matter of the death of her brother and the resurrection. Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live.” Both of these statements, the one regarding Noah and the fact of the flood and the one in which he declared himself to be the resurrection and the life, were made by the Lord. How can we believe one and not the other? How can we modernize the story of the flood, or refer to it as a myth, and yet cling to the truth of the other? How can we modernize the Bible and still have it be a guiding light to us and a vital influence in our beliefs? There are those who declare it is old-fashioned to believe in the Bible. Is it old-fashioned to believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God? Is it old-fashioned to believe in his atoning sacrifice and the resurrection? If it is, I declare myself to be old-fashioned and the Church to be old-fashioned. In great simplicity, the Master taught the principles of life eternal and lessons that bring happiness to those with the faith to believe.”
Gordon B. Hinckley: it's hard to classify Hinckley because he often made unhelpful statements like "I am not concerned with organic evolution. I do not worry about it. I passed through that argument long ago" that don't help us in determining whether he accepted evolution or not. My decision to color him red comes from this: "I believe in evolution, not organic evolution, as it is called, but in the evolution of the mind, the heart, and the soul of man. I believe in improvement. I believe in growth."
Thomas S. Monson: Monson is also somewhat on the fence, but the general theme of the following statement (which he's repeated multiple times in various settings, including a First Presidency message and in general conference) is belief in the Bible over "so-called science": "I acknowledge that I do not understand the processes of creation, but I accept the fact of it. I grant that I cannot explain the miracles of the Bible, and I do not attempt to do so, but I accept God's word. I wasn't with Joseph, but I believe him. My faith did not come to me through science, and I will not permit so-called science to destroy it."
Other references to evolution by materials printed by the church
The 1909 first presidency statement by Joseph F. Smith was reprinted in the February 2002 Ensign. While the statement is old, this suggests continued support of the principles it taught.
The Old Testament study manual: "In the world another theory of how things began is popularly held and widely taught. This theory, that of organic evolution, was generally developed from the writings of Charles Darwin. It puts forth different ideas concerning how life began and where man came from. In relation to this theory, the following statements should help you understand what the Church teaches about the Creation and the origin of man." (It then quotes statements that denounce evolution by Joseph F. Smith, George Albert Smith, and others.)
Conclusion
A collection of other quotes by LDS leaders that were not president of the church at the time can be found here.
You'll notice a lot of red and purple but no blue. The LDS church has never publicly come out in support of evolution as some other churches have done. Whether or not any of the statements constitute "official doctrine" is not a productive discussion. It's clear that, official or not, the message sent by the church consistently leads members to deny evolution, resulting in a membership with a very low rate of scientific literacy compared to the rest of the country.
A minority of Mormons do accept the reality of evolution (BYU does have a Biology department, after all.) Others believe that evolution applies to plant and animal life but not humans, which to me (a biologist) is an untenable position due to the obvious similarity and shared evolutionary history between humans, earlier hominids and other primates. No one has to follow the teachings of church leadership, though I do think it raises the question of why the church would consistently teach and support a viewpoint that is incorrect, misleading the majority of the membership on an interesting and important question.
If you find any further evidence (particularly anything that could be classified as explicitly supporting evolution), please let me know, and I'll add it to this list.
Note: the caption of the Pew graph is "% who agree that evolution is the best explanation for the origins of human life on earth." I tried to find out whether this was the way they worded the question on the survey, but couldn't determine the exact wording used. If it is, it's not how I would have worded it; it's misleading, and some religious people that try to balance evolution and religion may answer no because they feel that the "best" explanation has to include god.
Still, this doesn't warrant throwing out the survey results entirely. People from any religious group taking the survey would have faced the same dilemma. The fact that Mormons are so dramatically below everyone else is still significant.
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
500 questions about God and Christianity
It's not up to 500 yet, but this is an interesting blog that asks questions you may not have thought of before:
http://500questions.wordpress.com/
http://500questions.wordpress.com/
Sunday, June 17, 2012
Irrationality is one of the mind's natural defense mechanisms
Why are we so eager to defend our own existing beliefs?
The answer may lie in how our brains function. The human brain is a fascinatingly complex information storage system. It's not like a computer, encoding information precisely as bits that can then be retrieved exactly as they were stored. Rather, it forms fuzzy "networks" of neurons that contain not only pieces of information, but also the emotional context associated with that information.
For example, if I say to you the word "bear," or show you a picture of a bear:
...neurons containing information about bears are going to fire. But they also contain links to other information that will begin firing as well: forest, hunting, Yellowstone, picnic, grizzly, panda, dangerous. I'm not sure what your feelings on bears are, but when you think about bears, you retrieve an entire network of information and emotions. And the more time you spend thinking about bears, the more you read about bears, the more you learn about bears, the stronger this network will become.
Now if I say to you "Obama" or "Mitt Romney," a very different set of information and emotions comes up, depending on your feelings toward these two figures. You also likely visualize the colors blue and red, respectively.
These information networks are not abstract or ethereal. They make up a physical part of your brain. They exist physically, just as surely as your arm or your leg.
As you gain new information, your mind will store it and link it to existing networks. The most efficient storage mechanism is to seek out or interpret information in such a way that it will conform with preexisting structures and can simply reinforce them. It's easier to add to existing information than to tear down all of the existing networks (which would require dramatic physical changes within your brain) and try to replace them in light of new information. This is called confirmation bias, and it's very powerful.
Similarly, when we encounter information that is detrimental to our existing belief systems, the mind's natural response is to pit its existing neural structures against that information to discredit it. The more scary or dangerous a piece of information seems, and the stronger the underlying mental networks that disagree with it, the more mental effort one will exert to stop it from changing their mind. This phenomenon is known as disconfirmation bias.
When our mind holds conflicting information, it means that networks have sections of overlapping nodes but may have attached different significance to them. The brain will seek to interpret the information in a non-threatening way that resolves the conflict to a consistent state while preserving as much information and existing structure as possible. This condition can cause stress and anxiety until it is resolved and is known as cognitive dissonance. It can lead to justification of information that we believe in strongly but which conflict with each other.
Think of it as analogous to your immune system. Your mind is using psychological mechanisms to protect your existing beliefs, which actually form a physical part of your body, stored and networked within your brain.
When we hear an idea that conflicts with our beliefs, our brain's natural response is to try to discredit that idea, regardless of whether the idea is right or wrong. Understanding this may be helpful in overcoming it and being able to have rational discussions and even change one's own mind due to a compelling argument.
The answer may lie in how our brains function. The human brain is a fascinatingly complex information storage system. It's not like a computer, encoding information precisely as bits that can then be retrieved exactly as they were stored. Rather, it forms fuzzy "networks" of neurons that contain not only pieces of information, but also the emotional context associated with that information.
For example, if I say to you the word "bear," or show you a picture of a bear:
...neurons containing information about bears are going to fire. But they also contain links to other information that will begin firing as well: forest, hunting, Yellowstone, picnic, grizzly, panda, dangerous. I'm not sure what your feelings on bears are, but when you think about bears, you retrieve an entire network of information and emotions. And the more time you spend thinking about bears, the more you read about bears, the more you learn about bears, the stronger this network will become.
Now if I say to you "Obama" or "Mitt Romney," a very different set of information and emotions comes up, depending on your feelings toward these two figures. You also likely visualize the colors blue and red, respectively.
These information networks are not abstract or ethereal. They make up a physical part of your brain. They exist physically, just as surely as your arm or your leg.
As you gain new information, your mind will store it and link it to existing networks. The most efficient storage mechanism is to seek out or interpret information in such a way that it will conform with preexisting structures and can simply reinforce them. It's easier to add to existing information than to tear down all of the existing networks (which would require dramatic physical changes within your brain) and try to replace them in light of new information. This is called confirmation bias, and it's very powerful.
Similarly, when we encounter information that is detrimental to our existing belief systems, the mind's natural response is to pit its existing neural structures against that information to discredit it. The more scary or dangerous a piece of information seems, and the stronger the underlying mental networks that disagree with it, the more mental effort one will exert to stop it from changing their mind. This phenomenon is known as disconfirmation bias.
When our mind holds conflicting information, it means that networks have sections of overlapping nodes but may have attached different significance to them. The brain will seek to interpret the information in a non-threatening way that resolves the conflict to a consistent state while preserving as much information and existing structure as possible. This condition can cause stress and anxiety until it is resolved and is known as cognitive dissonance. It can lead to justification of information that we believe in strongly but which conflict with each other.
Think of it as analogous to your immune system. Your mind is using psychological mechanisms to protect your existing beliefs, which actually form a physical part of your body, stored and networked within your brain.
When we hear an idea that conflicts with our beliefs, our brain's natural response is to try to discredit that idea, regardless of whether the idea is right or wrong. Understanding this may be helpful in overcoming it and being able to have rational discussions and even change one's own mind due to a compelling argument.
Intelligent people are often the most wrong
I like to cite Wikipedia when making claims, because I feel it's a fairly neutral, factual source that most people can agree on; it's certainly less partisan than either the Church's own website or a critic's, and it overwhelmingly cites sources for the information it contains. Take a look at the pages about Mormonism and you will find that they are presented in a very fair way, with Mormons allowed their own perspective as well, even when the evidence seems to refute it. Some will argue that "anyone can write whatever they want on Wikipedia," but because of the way it's set up, nonsense or incorrect edits are usually promptly removed. In fact, studies show that Wikipedia is about as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica, which is very impressive when you consider that it's written and edited entirely by volunteers and contains orders of magnitude more information (a click on random just now got me this.)
So to me, Conservapedia is a very interesting phenomenon. Created by a lawyer and homeschooling advocate named Andrew Schlafly who felt that Wikipedia had a consistent liberal bias, Conservapedia "is a conservative, family-friendly Wiki encyclopedia" (source: the Conservapedia page on itself.) It also lacks some of the strict citation and notability guidelines found in Wikipedia. If you've never heard of it, take a look at the front page for a second. Go on, I'll wait.
Current front-page topics include "Why does biblical creation matter?" "How stale and boring is evolutionary indoctrination and evobabble?" "Internet atheism failed in 2012" and "Evidences for a young earth and universe." Oh, and also, "Creation Ministries International is on the rise, evolutionism and atheism is NOT!" (That one is so true that they had to YELL it at you!) The authors of Conservapedia dispute many accepted scientific theories by arguing for a "conservative" view of natural phenomena which are completely non-partisan (but some of which, like climate change, might have ramifications which are seen as more in line with one party's value system.) Some favorite quotes: "The scientific evidence points to a young age of the earth and universe..." and "The fossil record does not support the theory of evolution and is one of the flaws in the theory of evolution" and "The theory of relativity has been repeatedly contradicted by experiments." Also, count the number of references to "Creation Ministries International" you find - on the home page right now, there are four. This seems odd considering Conservapedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a creationist magazine.
It's as if there are two sets of facts: the set agreed upon by Wikipedia and scientists (and other "liberals") and the "conservative" version of the facts. But while people can have different opinions about philosophy or the significance of events, we live in a shared reality, so science isn't up for ideological debate. Science remains our best explanation of nature until new evidence is found that improves it.
I'd love to see Conservapedia compared to Britannica, but anyone who made such a comparison would undoubtedly be found guilty of a strong liberal bias.
I'm not a physicist or a climatologist, so I'll leave those topics to their respective experts. But, for fun, let's take a look at the Conservapedia page on evolution:
"Since World War II a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs methodological naturalism have been atheists." Whether this is true or not (no supporting evidence is cited), it's irrelevant to whether or not evolution is a good explanation of the world around us. It merely serves to "poison the well" against proponents of evolution, causing the mostly religious audience of Conservapedia to feel threatened by the theory from the start.
An external source is then cited: "Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture...announced that over 700 scientists from around the world have now signed a statement expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution." "Over 700" might sound like a lot until you realize how small a fragment of scientists that actually represents: about 0.054% of life and geological scientists in the U.S. Additionally, not all of these "scientists" are doctoral-level researchers, and may are in fields that are not directly related to evolution; three quarters are not biologists. This citation attempts to mislead viewers that there is scientific uncertainty on the topic, when in fact scientists have reached an overwhelming consensus on evolution.
"The theory of evolution posits a process of transformation from simple life forms to more complex life forms, which has never been observed or duplicated in a laboratory." This statement is misleading as well. Transitioning from "simple life forms to more complex life forms" would take billions of years, so obviously it isn't something that could reasonably be observed in a laboratory setting. Nevertheless, we have observed evidence of exactly this happening in the fossil record, and evidence of mutation causing significant changes to species resulting in speciation (members of the same species become so different from one another that they can no longer reproduce, forming a new species) has been observed in the lab and in the world around us within the past several hundred years. Examples include the greenish warbler and the Ensatina genus of salamanders.
The article also links to "15 questions that evolutionists can't answer." This list doesn't contain a single question that can't be answered. If you're interested in the answers, send me a message.
This is all just from reading the introduction. The article is, at present, over 20,000 words in length, and debating the whole thing isn't the point of this post.
And so, if you can see just how far off Conservapedia is when it comes to understanding and accepting facts, you might be tempted to label Schlafly and others that have contributed to his project as stupid. I can understand that. But, the astonishing fact is that he's not stupid. At least not in the usual sense of the word. He has a B.S.E. in Electrical Engineering from Princeton, and a J.D. from Harvard. He's actually a very intelligent and motivated person, which gives him the ability to make very legitimate-sounding (but misleading) arguments about topics on which he is very clearly wrong.
Why do very intelligent people have a visceral reaction to evolution, and try to argue that the evidence doesn't support it, when it very clearly does? The answer is that it conflicts with their identity - evolution may have religious ramifications that some are unwilling to accept. So, these very intelligent people are engaging their intelligence, but not to find truth - they're using it to defend their identity and existing beliefs.
So, ironically, the smarter you are, the better able you are to defend your beliefs (even when they're wrong), and the less likely you are to respond to reasonable arguments against them.
As an added bonus, check out Conservapedia's "Conservative Bible Project," in which they rewrite the Bible removing parts they deem to have "liberal bias."
So to me, Conservapedia is a very interesting phenomenon. Created by a lawyer and homeschooling advocate named Andrew Schlafly who felt that Wikipedia had a consistent liberal bias, Conservapedia "is a conservative, family-friendly Wiki encyclopedia" (source: the Conservapedia page on itself.) It also lacks some of the strict citation and notability guidelines found in Wikipedia. If you've never heard of it, take a look at the front page for a second. Go on, I'll wait.
Current front-page topics include "Why does biblical creation matter?" "How stale and boring is evolutionary indoctrination and evobabble?" "Internet atheism failed in 2012" and "Evidences for a young earth and universe." Oh, and also, "Creation Ministries International is on the rise, evolutionism and atheism is NOT!" (That one is so true that they had to YELL it at you!) The authors of Conservapedia dispute many accepted scientific theories by arguing for a "conservative" view of natural phenomena which are completely non-partisan (but some of which, like climate change, might have ramifications which are seen as more in line with one party's value system.) Some favorite quotes: "The scientific evidence points to a young age of the earth and universe..." and "The fossil record does not support the theory of evolution and is one of the flaws in the theory of evolution" and "The theory of relativity has been repeatedly contradicted by experiments." Also, count the number of references to "Creation Ministries International" you find - on the home page right now, there are four. This seems odd considering Conservapedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a creationist magazine.
It's as if there are two sets of facts: the set agreed upon by Wikipedia and scientists (and other "liberals") and the "conservative" version of the facts. But while people can have different opinions about philosophy or the significance of events, we live in a shared reality, so science isn't up for ideological debate. Science remains our best explanation of nature until new evidence is found that improves it.
I'd love to see Conservapedia compared to Britannica, but anyone who made such a comparison would undoubtedly be found guilty of a strong liberal bias.
I'm not a physicist or a climatologist, so I'll leave those topics to their respective experts. But, for fun, let's take a look at the Conservapedia page on evolution:
"Since World War II a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs methodological naturalism have been atheists." Whether this is true or not (no supporting evidence is cited), it's irrelevant to whether or not evolution is a good explanation of the world around us. It merely serves to "poison the well" against proponents of evolution, causing the mostly religious audience of Conservapedia to feel threatened by the theory from the start.
An external source is then cited: "Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture...announced that over 700 scientists from around the world have now signed a statement expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution." "Over 700" might sound like a lot until you realize how small a fragment of scientists that actually represents: about 0.054% of life and geological scientists in the U.S. Additionally, not all of these "scientists" are doctoral-level researchers, and may are in fields that are not directly related to evolution; three quarters are not biologists. This citation attempts to mislead viewers that there is scientific uncertainty on the topic, when in fact scientists have reached an overwhelming consensus on evolution.
"The theory of evolution posits a process of transformation from simple life forms to more complex life forms, which has never been observed or duplicated in a laboratory." This statement is misleading as well. Transitioning from "simple life forms to more complex life forms" would take billions of years, so obviously it isn't something that could reasonably be observed in a laboratory setting. Nevertheless, we have observed evidence of exactly this happening in the fossil record, and evidence of mutation causing significant changes to species resulting in speciation (members of the same species become so different from one another that they can no longer reproduce, forming a new species) has been observed in the lab and in the world around us within the past several hundred years. Examples include the greenish warbler and the Ensatina genus of salamanders.
The article also links to "15 questions that evolutionists can't answer." This list doesn't contain a single question that can't be answered. If you're interested in the answers, send me a message.
This is all just from reading the introduction. The article is, at present, over 20,000 words in length, and debating the whole thing isn't the point of this post.
And so, if you can see just how far off Conservapedia is when it comes to understanding and accepting facts, you might be tempted to label Schlafly and others that have contributed to his project as stupid. I can understand that. But, the astonishing fact is that he's not stupid. At least not in the usual sense of the word. He has a B.S.E. in Electrical Engineering from Princeton, and a J.D. from Harvard. He's actually a very intelligent and motivated person, which gives him the ability to make very legitimate-sounding (but misleading) arguments about topics on which he is very clearly wrong.
Why do very intelligent people have a visceral reaction to evolution, and try to argue that the evidence doesn't support it, when it very clearly does? The answer is that it conflicts with their identity - evolution may have religious ramifications that some are unwilling to accept. So, these very intelligent people are engaging their intelligence, but not to find truth - they're using it to defend their identity and existing beliefs.
So, ironically, the smarter you are, the better able you are to defend your beliefs (even when they're wrong), and the less likely you are to respond to reasonable arguments against them.
As an added bonus, check out Conservapedia's "Conservative Bible Project," in which they rewrite the Bible removing parts they deem to have "liberal bias."
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Is the Mormon church a cult?
This is obviously a sensitive topic, and most Mormons will immediately respond that it isn't. But, keep in mind that members of cults usually don't think they're in a cult, so you can't just go with your gut on this one.
I imagine that most LDS members can't even begin to understand why some people view their religion as a cult. Or, they may think that it's simply because they're different from mainstream Christianity.
Is the Mormon church a cult? I don't have an easy answer, because I think that it's not a black and white issue. Is the church 100% evil incarnate - no, absolutely not. But do they engage in some cult-like behaviors? Yes, they do.
Let's look at an objective set of criteria defining whether a group qualifies as a cult. The following list comes from the Cult Awareness and Information Centre (CAIC), a non-profit watchdog group in Australia:
They also list the following eight points used by Robert Jay Lifton, a popular psychiatrist and cult researcher (these points are very concise, and will be explained in more detail further down):
Now, let's look at these items and evaluate whether they apply to the LDS church. From CAIC's list:
1. The cult is authoritarian in its power structure.
The "law of consecration" practiced by the early church is another example of cult-like communal ownership of property which is overseen by the leaders. While this law is no longer practiced in its extreme, members still pledge to "consecrate" all of their time and all they have to the church.
2. The cult's leaders center the veneration of members on themselves.
3. The cult tends to be totalitarian in its control of the behavior of its members.
Members are regularly encouraged to confess their sins to their bishop. Are members encouraged to lie to outsiders ("lying for the Lord?") They are encouraged to be selective in what they share about stranger church doctrines and questionable events from church history, a concept codified in the phrase "milk before meat," and to share spiritual experiences with each other but not with outsiders.
A potent example: the sitting President of the church, Joseph F. Smith, gave an incredibly deceptive interview before Congress during the Reed Smoot hearings in which he insinuated that the president of the church does not speak with God or receive revelation (other than what "any good Methodist" could receive) and lied about the extent to which polygamy was practiced.
4. The cult has basically only two purposes, recruiting new members and fund-raising.
5. The cult appears to be innovative and exclusive.
Church history is presented in such a positive, non-threatening light as to be deliberately deceptive at times. Another example is the exclusive use of images which depict Joseph translating the golden plates as if he literally translated them, such as this one:
...which is not at all how it happened; he put a stone into a hat, and read words that appeared there. Sometimes the plates were not even in the room. Intentionally using inaccurate depictions of this event is deceptive.
Compare this with mainstream Christians. When Christians choose a sect, they choose the one they personally agree with or enjoy associating with most, not the one with the most compelling claim to be the original, authorized church personally established by Jesus.
1. Environment control.
They are also taught that they are a "peculiar people" and enforce standards to separate themselves from the world. The church frequently declares that the world is becoming increasingly evil, and that only through adherence to the principles taught by the church can families escape the evil of the world.
2. Mystical manipulation.
3. Demand for purity.
4. Cult of confession.
5. Sacred science.
6. Loaded language.
7. Doctrine over person.
8. Dispensing of existence.
Leaders of the church have made disparaging comments about "apostates" in the past and continue to do so.
Conclusion
While calling any religious organization a "cult" is divisive and counterproductive, the LDS church does engage in some "cult-like" practices.
I imagine that most LDS members can't even begin to understand why some people view their religion as a cult. Or, they may think that it's simply because they're different from mainstream Christianity.
Is the Mormon church a cult? I don't have an easy answer, because I think that it's not a black and white issue. Is the church 100% evil incarnate - no, absolutely not. But do they engage in some cult-like behaviors? Yes, they do.
Let's look at an objective set of criteria defining whether a group qualifies as a cult. The following list comes from the Cult Awareness and Information Centre (CAIC), a non-profit watchdog group in Australia:
- The cult is authoritarian in its power structure.
- The cult's leaders center the veneration of members on themselves.
- The cult tends to be totalitarian in its control of the behavior of its members.
- The cult has basically only two purposes, recruiting new members and fund-raising.
- The cult appears to be innovative and exclusive.
They also list the following eight points used by Robert Jay Lifton, a popular psychiatrist and cult researcher (these points are very concise, and will be explained in more detail further down):
- Environment control.
- Mystical manipulation.
- Demand for purity.
- Cult of confession.
- Sacred science.
- Loaded language.
- Doctrine over person.
- Dispensing of existence.
Now, let's look at these items and evaluate whether they apply to the LDS church. From CAIC's list:
1. The cult is authoritarian in its power structure.
The leader is regarded as the supreme authority. He or she may delegate certain power to a few subordinates for the purpose of seeing that members adhere to the leader's wishes and roles. There is no appeal outside of his or her system to greater systems of justice. For example, if a school teacher feels unjustly treated by a principal, appeals can be made. In a cult, the leader claims to have the only and final ruling on all matters.
The cult's leaders tend to be charismatic, determined, and domineering.
They persuade followers to drop their families, jobs, careers, and friends to follow them. They (not the individual) then take over control of their followers' possessions, money, lives. The cult's leaders are self-appointed, messianic persons who claim to have a special mission in life. For example, the flying saucer cult leaders claim that people from outer space have commissioned them to lead people to special places to await a space ship.The LDS church does have a strong, hierarchical, all-male leadership structure in which the man at the top wields absolute power and claims to represent God to the rest of the church and to communicate with God personally. The things he says or teaches are considered revelation and the word of God (until he's overruled by a future leader.) As N. Eldon Tanner stated, "when the prophet speaks, the debate is over." While this was not the case in the early Mormon church, today, obedience is prized over critical thought. This is somewhat troubling and is a characteristic that the LDS church shares with cults. LDS leaders to claim to be called by God, through this authority structure, to do his work.
The "law of consecration" practiced by the early church is another example of cult-like communal ownership of property which is overseen by the leaders. While this law is no longer practiced in its extreme, members still pledge to "consecrate" all of their time and all they have to the church.
2. The cult's leaders center the veneration of members on themselves.
Priests, rabbis, ministers, democratic leaders, and leaders of genuinely altruistic movements keep the veneration of adherents focused on God, abstract principles, and group purposes. Cult leaders, in contrast, keep the focus of love, devotion, and allegiance on themselves.I wouldn't say this applies especially to the LDS church. While the top leaders do designate themselves "prophets and apostles," songs are sung about them, and prayers are given in their behalf, I think this is relatively benign.
3. The cult tends to be totalitarian in its control of the behavior of its members.
Cults are likely to dictate in great detail what members wear, eat, when and where they work, sleep, and bathe-as well as what to believe, think, and say. The cult tends to have a double set of ethics. Members are urged to be open and honest within the group, and confess all to the leaders. On the other hand, they are encouraged to deceive and manipulate outsiders or nonmembers. Established religions teach members to be honest and truthful to all, and to abide by one set of ethics.Here's one where the LDS church scores much higher than most other religions. The church has a narrow set of "standards" which dictate appearance (garments, "conservative" hairstyles, regulated "modesty" in dress, no tattoos, etc.), language, and sexual behaviors, among other things.
Members are regularly encouraged to confess their sins to their bishop. Are members encouraged to lie to outsiders ("lying for the Lord?") They are encouraged to be selective in what they share about stranger church doctrines and questionable events from church history, a concept codified in the phrase "milk before meat," and to share spiritual experiences with each other but not with outsiders.
A potent example: the sitting President of the church, Joseph F. Smith, gave an incredibly deceptive interview before Congress during the Reed Smoot hearings in which he insinuated that the president of the church does not speak with God or receive revelation (other than what "any good Methodist" could receive) and lied about the extent to which polygamy was practiced.
4. The cult has basically only two purposes, recruiting new members and fund-raising.
Established religions and altruistic movements may also recruit and raise funds. However, their sole purpose is not to grow larger; such groups have the goals to better the lives of their members and mankind in general. The cults may claim to make social contributions, but in actuality these remain mere claims, or gestures. Their focus is always dominated by recruiting new members and fund-raising.The church focuses a lot more on missionary work than most other religious groups. But where they really outshine the rest is their emphasis on tithing. A tithe of 10% of members' salary is a requirement to enter the temple, which is necessary for salvation; additional offerings are expected on top of this. Lessons are taught about tithes and offerings, and they're usually mentioned at least once in each of the church's semi-annual General Conferences. This amount of required financial investment is almost unparalleled among other major religions.
5. The cult appears to be innovative and exclusive.
The leader claims to be breaking with tradition, offering something novel, and instituting the only viable system for change that will solve life's problems or the world's ills. While claiming this, the cult then surreptitiously uses systems of psychological coercion on its members to inhibit their ability to examine the actual validity of the claims of the leader and the cult.The LDS church was "restored" because all other churches and creeds were "corrupt." Church history is taught selectively, limiting members' ability to assess the validity of its claim to be the one true restored church. Most members, for example, are taught one unified version of the "First Vision," not the multiple disparate and self-contradictory accounts that were written over time and synthesized after Joseph's death into the version that's contained in "History of the Church" today.
Church history is presented in such a positive, non-threatening light as to be deliberately deceptive at times. Another example is the exclusive use of images which depict Joseph translating the golden plates as if he literally translated them, such as this one:
...which is not at all how it happened; he put a stone into a hat, and read words that appeared there. Sometimes the plates were not even in the room. Intentionally using inaccurate depictions of this event is deceptive.
Compare this with mainstream Christians. When Christians choose a sect, they choose the one they personally agree with or enjoy associating with most, not the one with the most compelling claim to be the original, authorized church personally established by Jesus.
1. Environment control.
Limitation of many/all forms of communication with those outside the group. Books, magazines, letters and visits with friends and family are taboo. "Come out and be separate!"The LDS church is not as extreme as this description, but it does discourage members from viewing material about the church that's not written and distributed by the church itself, which limits members' ability to objectively reason about the church's history, as mentioned above.
They are also taught that they are a "peculiar people" and enforce standards to separate themselves from the world. The church frequently declares that the world is becoming increasingly evil, and that only through adherence to the principles taught by the church can families escape the evil of the world.
2. Mystical manipulation.
The potential convert to the group becomes convinced of the higher purpose and special calling of the group through a profound encounter/experience, for example, through an alleged miracle or prophetic word of those in the group.The church does claim to have prophets, and members share "spiritual experiences" that led to their conversion.
3. Demand for purity.
An explicit goal of the group is to bring about some kind of change, whether it be on a global, social, or personal level. "Perfection is possible if one stays with the group and is committed."
4. Cult of confession.
The unhealthy practice of self disclosure to members in the group. Often in the context of a public gathering in the group, admitting past sins and imperfections, even doubts about the group and critical thoughts about the integrity of the leaders.Members are required to confess their "sins" to local leaders, including about very personal things like sexual behaviors, and are disciplined for disobeying church rules.
5. Sacred science.
The group's perspective is absolutely true and completely adequate to explain EVERYTHING. The doctrine is not subject to amendments or question. ABSOLUTE conformity to the doctrine is required.This wasn't the case with the early church as much as it is today.
6. Loaded language.
A new vocabulary emerges within the context of the group. Group members "think" within the very abstract and narrow parameters of the group's doctrine. The terminology sufficiently stops members from thinking critically by reinforcing a "black and white" mentality. Loaded terms and cliches prejudice thinking.
7. Doctrine over person.
Pre-group experience and group experience are narrowly and decisively interpreted through the absolute doctrine, even when experience contradicts the doctrine.
8. Dispensing of existence.
Salvation is possible only in the group. Those who leave the group are doomed.The LDS church teaches that they are the only one with God's authority, and "ordinances of the church by proper priesthood authority" are necessary for salvation. In contrast, most Christian denominations believe that they are the most correct but still believe that members of other denominations are "saved" by Jesus just as surely as they are. Mormons believe that members of other denominations will need to have priesthood ordinances done by proxy after they're dead in order to be "saved" even if they profess belief in Jesus, live a good life, and have been baptized into another church.
Leaders of the church have made disparaging comments about "apostates" in the past and continue to do so.
Conclusion
While calling any religious organization a "cult" is divisive and counterproductive, the LDS church does engage in some "cult-like" practices.
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Today's Mormonism is being marketed to a different crowd
This was originally a comment on Reddit (/r/lds), but I spent so much time on it, I thought I'd post it here as well.
I think that Mormonism is being "marketed" to a different crowd (for lack of a better word) than it was originally.
The early church appealed to people like Parley P. and Orson Pratt and John A. Widtsoe, who attempted to synthesize its teachings with the (incomplete and often erroneous) scientific understanding of the time. There is some very interesting early writing available on Project Gutenberg by these authors. "Joseph Smith as Scientist" by Widtsoe, for example, attempts to show how Joseph Smith's teachings coincide with the concept of the luminiferous aether. This concept has since been discredited, but I still respect the attempt to try to work within the framework of knowledge they had at the time. These were people who were unsatisfied with popular religious dogma and wanted a theology that was very much based on logic and reason, and Mormonism provided that.
[This Monson quote:]
would come across as extremely condescending and backwards to early members of the church. They were also very interested in the "deep doctrine" discussions that church members today are discouraged from even having; today, we're taught only the most basic of principles, which are reinforced by repetition.
The modern church is more dominated by Ezra Taft Bensons and Boyd K. Packers and Russel M. Nelsons and can be antagonistic toward intellectuals that try to be honest and objective with the facts while balancing them with LDS teachings (like these people and this guy.) As scientific understanding has improved, Mormonism has lost some of its appeal for those who keep up with it, and the message has been gradually retooled for those that do not. Instead of looking for ways that their theology and science coincide, they dismiss or actively mock widely accepted scientific theories. Instead of studying out and thinking critically about criticisms of the church, Monson encourages members to put them aside and ignore them. To me, he's essentially embracing willful ignorance.
There are notable counterexamples of Mormon scientists such as Henry Eyring, but even he in one of his books admits to ignoring many of the teachings of leaders of the church on topics of scientific relevance because "we only have to believe what's true." So, Eyring was a Mormon in spite of some church teachings.
I've attended church around the country. Many times, in many places, I've sat in Sunday school and listened to evolution or the big bang being ridiculed ("some people think we came from monkeys") by people with absolutely no understanding of the theories, or to people questioning the age of the earth, throwing out government or vaccination conspiracy theories, etc. To be fair, some do disagree, but they're vastly outnumbered, and these behaviors are often mirrored and reinforced by church leaders. In my experience, it's these people that make up the core of active church membership today, and I don't think they would have been as comfortable with the early church as they are with the modern.
I think that Mormonism is being "marketed" to a different crowd (for lack of a better word) than it was originally.
The early church appealed to people like Parley P. and Orson Pratt and John A. Widtsoe, who attempted to synthesize its teachings with the (incomplete and often erroneous) scientific understanding of the time. There is some very interesting early writing available on Project Gutenberg by these authors. "Joseph Smith as Scientist" by Widtsoe, for example, attempts to show how Joseph Smith's teachings coincide with the concept of the luminiferous aether. This concept has since been discredited, but I still respect the attempt to try to work within the framework of knowledge they had at the time. These were people who were unsatisfied with popular religious dogma and wanted a theology that was very much based on logic and reason, and Mormonism provided that.
[This Monson quote:]
"Should doubt knock at your doorway, just say to those skeptical, disturbing, rebellious thoughts: 'I propose to stay with my faith, with the faith of my people. I know that happiness and contentment are there, and I forbid you, agnostic, doubting thoughts, to destroy the house of my faith. I acknowledge that I do not understand the processes of creation, but I accept the fact of it. I grant that I cannot explain the miracles of the Bible, and I do not attempt to do so, but I accept God’s word. I wasn’t with Joseph, but I believe him. My faith did not come to me through science, and I will not permit so-called science to destroy it."
would come across as extremely condescending and backwards to early members of the church. They were also very interested in the "deep doctrine" discussions that church members today are discouraged from even having; today, we're taught only the most basic of principles, which are reinforced by repetition.
The modern church is more dominated by Ezra Taft Bensons and Boyd K. Packers and Russel M. Nelsons and can be antagonistic toward intellectuals that try to be honest and objective with the facts while balancing them with LDS teachings (like these people and this guy.) As scientific understanding has improved, Mormonism has lost some of its appeal for those who keep up with it, and the message has been gradually retooled for those that do not. Instead of looking for ways that their theology and science coincide, they dismiss or actively mock widely accepted scientific theories. Instead of studying out and thinking critically about criticisms of the church, Monson encourages members to put them aside and ignore them. To me, he's essentially embracing willful ignorance.
There are notable counterexamples of Mormon scientists such as Henry Eyring, but even he in one of his books admits to ignoring many of the teachings of leaders of the church on topics of scientific relevance because "we only have to believe what's true." So, Eyring was a Mormon in spite of some church teachings.
I've attended church around the country. Many times, in many places, I've sat in Sunday school and listened to evolution or the big bang being ridiculed ("some people think we came from monkeys") by people with absolutely no understanding of the theories, or to people questioning the age of the earth, throwing out government or vaccination conspiracy theories, etc. To be fair, some do disagree, but they're vastly outnumbered, and these behaviors are often mirrored and reinforced by church leaders. In my experience, it's these people that make up the core of active church membership today, and I don't think they would have been as comfortable with the early church as they are with the modern.
Monday, May 21, 2012
Simon Southerton, ex-Mormon scientist
Simon Southerton is a plant geneticist who was a faithful Mormon for years, even serving as a bishop. Eventually, he became aware of the conflict between Mormonism and science. He published a book that challenged the LDS position that Native Americans are of Israelite descent; he was allegedly excommunicated over this. Years ago, as a faithful member, I remember watching a video of Southerton discussing the issue of genetics and the Book of Mormon. At the time, I was easily placated with apologetics, but I would say it was my first small step out of Mormonism.
Here is his personal story of why he, as a scientist, still believed, and why he eventually left.
Here are some of his interactions with LDS and apologists after resigning as bishop. Apologists exist to try to respond to concerns about the church, but ironically their antagonistic us-vs.-them approach often pushes away those that might benefit the most from their efforts.
Here's a recent interview with John Dehlin.
Here is his personal story of why he, as a scientist, still believed, and why he eventually left.
Here are some of his interactions with LDS and apologists after resigning as bishop. Apologists exist to try to respond to concerns about the church, but ironically their antagonistic us-vs.-them approach often pushes away those that might benefit the most from their efforts.
Here's a recent interview with John Dehlin.
Smoking Gun #2: Anachronisms in the Book of Mormon
This is the second issue on curious_mormon's top 10 smoking guns. I'll refer you to the sources in the original document; this is an analysis of the evidence for, and arguments for and against the significance of one of the top intellectual issues inherent in Mormonism.
2. The Book of Mormon is filled with anachronisms.
Summary: An anachronism is something present in a story that is inconsistent with its setting. A famous anachronism is found in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, in which a clock tower bell sounds; clock towers clearly hadn't yet been invented in Rome in the time of Julius Caesar. This is evidence that the play is a later work of fiction. A contemporary account simply wouldn't mention things that were unknown at the time.
The Book of Mormon is set in the Americas from about 2200 BC (Jaredites) to about 400 AD. (There are varying opinions on the precise geographic extent, ranging from a limited part of Central America to all of North and South America, although statements from Joseph Smith and the fact that North American natives are referred to frequently in the D&C as Lamanites suggest a large geographic scale.) There are a staggering number of anachronisms in the Book of Mormon: some significant examples include horses, wheat, wheeled chariots, cattle, goats, swine, metal currency, steel, iron, and silk. (Due to my relative familiarity, I'll focus largely on horses and other mammals.) The existence of such things tends to leave huge amounts of evidence.
Significance: If the Book of Mormon were truly a contemporary historical record, it would not contain things that its authors would have certainly been unfamiliar with. Nephite historians simply couldn't write about horses and chariots being used in battle if there were no horses or chariots or even wheels in the new world. The presence of anachronisms suggests that the Book of Mormon is a product of post-Columbus America, when all of these things were introduced to the Americas, and it was not common knowledge that none of them had existed previously.
Defense: Officially, the church downplays the ability of scientists to know what existed in the ancient Americas, suggesting that if any of these are currently thought of as anachronisms, they will be resolved by the discovery of future evidence. Here's a story from the Ensign in which Robert S. Wood recounts a personal story in which a non-Mormon friend gave a list of 50 anachronisms, and that throughout time, he was able to cross each one off of his list as not being anachronistic. Such stories downplay the importance of evidence, suggesting that faith in spite of such seeming contradictions is all that's necessary.
Once again, the apologist organization FAIR (which does not officially speak for the church) responds to this issue in more detail. Here's a link to the FAIR page on Book of Mormon anachronisms; here's the page on animals. FAIR goes to great lengths to try to speculate why each word would have been present in the Book of Mormon. A common theme is that Joseph may have used the names of similar animals that were known to him in the place of less well-known animals, such as replacing "tapir" with "ass" or "buffalo" with "cattle." FAIR also claims that "there is some evidence, not yet deemed definitive, which suggests that the true horse may have been known in at least some parts of Mesoamerica in pre-Columbian times before Christ."
Apologist Jeff Lindsay argues that the Book of Mormon does not necessarily state that horses were used for riding (see his page on plants on animals.)
Response: Robert S. Wood's story is just a personal anecdote; if it really happened, either his standard for crossing things off his list was not rigorous enough, or else his list must not have contained the prominent anachronisms mentioned (horses, cattle, wheat), as these are still accepted as clear anachronisms in the Book of Mormon, and there is absolutely no convincing evidence otherwise.
As for FAIR's claim that the species named in the Book of Mormon could refer to other species such as deer and buffalo, there is no reason to believe that such species were domesticated, so this is groundless speculation. There is very clear evidence that llamas were (and are) domesticated in South America, and none to suggest the domestication of any other large mammals (certainly if deer were usefully domesticated then, they'd still be in use now.) The Book of Mormon makes it clear that these were not just deer or tapirs but were domesticated animals, as in this verse:
4 Therefore, there was no chance for the robbers to plunder and to obtain food, save it were to come up in open battle against the Nephites; and the Nephites being in one body, and having so great a number, and having reserved for themselves provisions, and horses and cattle, and flocks of every kind, that they might subsist for the space of seven years, in the which time they did hope to destroy the robbers from off the face of the land; and thus the eighteenth year did pass away. (3 Nephi 4:4)
It is hard to imagine the people "subsisting" on herds of wild deer and tapir, or travelling on any of these, riding them into battle, or having them pull chariots.
Did the Book of Mormon people use these so-called horses for transportation? Yes, they did:
9 And they said unto him: Behold, he is feeding thy horses. Now the king had commanded his servants, previous to the time of the watering of their flocks, that they should prepare his horses and chariots, and conduct him forth to the land of Nephi; for there had been a great feast appointed at the land of Nephi, by the father of Lamoni, who was king over all the land. (Alma 18:9)
Every time chariots are mentioned in the Book of Mormon, it is as "horses and chariots." The obvious meaning is the one that any 19th century or modern reader would have come to - that horses were drawing chariots, and people were riding in them. This practice was unknown in the Americas in the time of the Book of Mormon, whether you take "horses" to mean tapirs or anything else.
Scientifically, the claim that horses were present in the Americas during this time period does not hold up. There was a prehistoric species of horse in the Americas, but it, along with many other large mammal species, became extinct (likely due to human hunting, clear evidence of a lack of domestication) at the end of the Pleistocene (11,700 years ago), long before the time described in the Book of Mormon. You can read more about this mass extinction event here. There has been no credible evidence of American horse species surviving past this time, and they left no cultural footprint.
Additionally, it must be noted that, according to Joseph and contemporaries, the translation process of the Book of Mormon involved God giving Joseph a literal character-by-character translation. Joseph did not make any decisions himself, he simply read the words that appeared, which were written down by a scribe. So, if there are mistakes, they are mistakes made by God, not Joseph.
Conclusion: Apologists have been unable to satisfactorily account for the presence of anachronistic animals, technologies, concepts, etc. in the Book of Mormon. Not only did the species mentioned not exist, but no functionally equivalent species existed that could have been referred to by these names. These anachronisms suggest strongly that the Book of Mormon is a 19th-century American work of fiction, not an ancient American historical record.
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," meaning that not finding horse remains in the Americas doesn't necessarily prove that there were no horses. However, there is a marked difference between cultures that have domesticated horses and those that do not; artistic representations of horses and horse-based artifacts such as saddles are common in horse-using cultures. No such evidence exists in American civilizations that we are aware of. This, the presence of so many distinct cultures without any mention of or artifacts pertaining to horses (not the absence of horse evidence itself) represents significant contradictory evidence that horses existed in the Americas before Columbus and were used as Europeans would have been used to.
Sunday, May 20, 2012
Why it's usually useless to discuss religion
I'm a Paul Graham fan; I often find his articles thought-provoking. In a short 2009 article, "Keep Your Identity Small," Graham explores "why politics and religion yield such uniquely useless discussions."
In general, people tend to talk about what they know about. I talk a lot about religion, biology, and computers, things I know about and am interested in. I don't really talk about nuclear power, because I'm more or less ignorant on the topic.
But, as Graham puts it, "[religion] is a topic where there's no threshold of expertise for expressing an opinion. All you need is [sic] strong convictions." Unfortunately, since religion is so all-encompassing a topic, this gives everyone a license to pontificate on issues ranging from philosophy to science to morality - without giving such issues the deep and unbiased study and thought they deserve.
When there is no threshold for expressing an opinion, discussion begins to be "driven mostly by people's identities," instead of being driven by facts or logic. Passion begins to replace reason, and people begin to talk past each other, becoming increasingly vitriolic. This is completely unproductive and results in changed opinions zero percent of the time and hurt feelings and strained relationships nearly a hundred percent.
The only solution would be to sever religion from one's sense of identity, to think about and discuss one's own religion as if one were not a member, and demand the amount of evidence that an impartial observer would demand. Once one identifies a system of thought as a fundamental part of their self, they lose the ability to think critically about it.
Is this separation of opinion and identity even possible? Certainly not for most people. But where it is possible, healthy and useful discussions can take place.
It's not just religious people who have an issue with assuming a shared identity. Similarly, I want to avoid the label "atheist" for myself, for a number of reasons. One is that the term carries huge amounts of baggage to those who hear it. The actual definition of atheism is lack of belief in a god; popular opinion combines this with other philosophies and scientific issues ranging from the Big Bang, abiogenesis, and evolution to anti-theism or sometimes, ironically, devil-worship, witchcraft or paganism. When you hear that someone is a "Republican" or a "Liberal" or an "Atheist" or a "Scientist" or even a "Gun Shooter" you immediately attach stereotypes to that person, and you can no longer have a real discussion with that person, only a puppet that you've created in your mind that looks like the person.
And, once you've defeated the puppet Atheist, you can feel like you've defeated the entire stereotyped philosophy. It's not a fair stance, though; whether or not you've previously bested an Atheist in debate, I'm a person, not a puppet. I have individual thoughts and feelings and when you delivered your final blow to the puppet of Atheism I couldn't even feel it. While I'm technically an atheist (as I don't believe in any gods) I'm probably quite different from the Atheist you could conjure up in your head.
Identifying as a "Lutheran" or a "Muslim" or an "Atheist" induces a sense of tribalism. It makes you inherently want to stick up for and adopt the views of others within your group, regardless of their individual merit. It enables you to give opinions not as an individual but as a member and representative of that group. ("What do you believe happens when we die?" "As Christians, we believe...") It insulates the individual from having to form and analyze all of their own opinions, as there is a default position ready for them to assume without criticism. Conversely, an attack on their ideas or the ideas of their group becomes a personal attack, as the individual is now inseparably connected to the group identity. Challenging a poor idea becomes a large-scale attack on an entire class of people. When this is the case, criticism is impossible, and therefore honest discussion is impossible.
So, how can we have effective discussions on a topic people tend to take so personally? "The best plan," according to Graham, "is to let as few things into your identity as possible." Definitely easier said than done.
In general, people tend to talk about what they know about. I talk a lot about religion, biology, and computers, things I know about and am interested in. I don't really talk about nuclear power, because I'm more or less ignorant on the topic.
But, as Graham puts it, "[religion] is a topic where there's no threshold of expertise for expressing an opinion. All you need is [sic] strong convictions." Unfortunately, since religion is so all-encompassing a topic, this gives everyone a license to pontificate on issues ranging from philosophy to science to morality - without giving such issues the deep and unbiased study and thought they deserve.
When there is no threshold for expressing an opinion, discussion begins to be "driven mostly by people's identities," instead of being driven by facts or logic. Passion begins to replace reason, and people begin to talk past each other, becoming increasingly vitriolic. This is completely unproductive and results in changed opinions zero percent of the time and hurt feelings and strained relationships nearly a hundred percent.
The only solution would be to sever religion from one's sense of identity, to think about and discuss one's own religion as if one were not a member, and demand the amount of evidence that an impartial observer would demand. Once one identifies a system of thought as a fundamental part of their self, they lose the ability to think critically about it.
Is this separation of opinion and identity even possible? Certainly not for most people. But where it is possible, healthy and useful discussions can take place.
It's not just religious people who have an issue with assuming a shared identity. Similarly, I want to avoid the label "atheist" for myself, for a number of reasons. One is that the term carries huge amounts of baggage to those who hear it. The actual definition of atheism is lack of belief in a god; popular opinion combines this with other philosophies and scientific issues ranging from the Big Bang, abiogenesis, and evolution to anti-theism or sometimes, ironically, devil-worship, witchcraft or paganism. When you hear that someone is a "Republican" or a "Liberal" or an "Atheist" or a "Scientist" or even a "Gun Shooter" you immediately attach stereotypes to that person, and you can no longer have a real discussion with that person, only a puppet that you've created in your mind that looks like the person.
And, once you've defeated the puppet Atheist, you can feel like you've defeated the entire stereotyped philosophy. It's not a fair stance, though; whether or not you've previously bested an Atheist in debate, I'm a person, not a puppet. I have individual thoughts and feelings and when you delivered your final blow to the puppet of Atheism I couldn't even feel it. While I'm technically an atheist (as I don't believe in any gods) I'm probably quite different from the Atheist you could conjure up in your head.
Identifying as a "Lutheran" or a "Muslim" or an "Atheist" induces a sense of tribalism. It makes you inherently want to stick up for and adopt the views of others within your group, regardless of their individual merit. It enables you to give opinions not as an individual but as a member and representative of that group. ("What do you believe happens when we die?" "As Christians, we believe...") It insulates the individual from having to form and analyze all of their own opinions, as there is a default position ready for them to assume without criticism. Conversely, an attack on their ideas or the ideas of their group becomes a personal attack, as the individual is now inseparably connected to the group identity. Challenging a poor idea becomes a large-scale attack on an entire class of people. When this is the case, criticism is impossible, and therefore honest discussion is impossible.
So, how can we have effective discussions on a topic people tend to take so personally? "The best plan," according to Graham, "is to let as few things into your identity as possible." Definitely easier said than done.
Smoking Gun #1: The Book of Abraham
This is the first issue on curious_mormon's top 10 smoking guns. I'll refer you to the sources in the original document; this is an analysis of the evidence for, and arguments for and against the significance of one of the top intellectual issues inherent in Mormonism.
1. The Book of Abraham facsimiles are translated incorrectly.
Summary: Joseph Smith claimed to translate an account written by Abraham on papyrus. If you turn to the "facsimiles" in the Book of Abraham, you can see that he had likenesses made of parts of the papyrus, numbered the sections, and gave detailed explanations of the characters and figures in each section. The papyrus still exist and have been examined by modern experts. Joseph's explanations do not remotely agree with the agreed-upon translations by both Mormon and non-Mormon experts. (Here's a link to a translation of part of the papyrus by BYU professor Michael D. Rhodes; here's a complete translation of the entire thing by Robert K. Ritner.)
Significance: Joseph is unique in that he has so far been the only Church President to claim to translate ancient documents; this ability is apparently not utilized by modern church leaders. For most of the revelations and translations produced by Joseph, we have to choose whether or not to take him at his word, as there is no surviving evidence that could give or detract from his account's credibility (for example, according to Joseph, the golden plates were taken back by an angel, so no one today can evaluate them.) The Book of Abraham is the glaring exception; it is the only translation of an ancient document made by Joseph for which we still have the original source document. It seems fair to evaluate Joseph's ability as a translator based on this, the only evidence we have of his ability. Based on scholars' consensus against Joseph, it is clear that he did not possess the ability, divine or otherwise, to translate ancient documents. The fact that he led people to believe he had translated the papyrus makes his incorrect translation fraudulent.
Defense: the Church does not acknowledge the discrepancy between Joseph's translation and that of experts. The Book of Abraham is still a part of the "standard works" of the LDS church and is considered the word of God. It is frequently mentioned in general conference, such as in this 2011 talk by apostle Richard G. Scott on "The Power of Scripture."
FAIR, a group of LDS apologists (people that try to explain why the church could still be true in spite of evidence to the contrary), has responded to the issue of the Book of Abraham generally, but not to the translation of the facsimiles. Here's a link to FAIR's arguments on the topic of the Book of Abraham on topics such as Book of Abraham content and age.
While FAIR does not address the discrepancy either, they do suggest that the Book of Abraham contains things that "Joseph couldn't have known," such as claims of parallels between Book of Abraham names and actual Egyptian names (or Egyptian words mixed with words in other regional languages.) Jeff Lindsay makes a similar argument - "I will agree that a literal translation of the Egyptian characters does not necessarily provide the commentary or "translation" that Joseph added with the figures, but in many cases his comments show surprising correlations with what some scholars have learned in recent years."
Response: The supposed parallels with Egyptian names are debatable; see MormonThink's discussion of the topic here. Still, even if this was a valid point, it's tangential to and does not obviate the problems with the mistranslation of the facsimiles. Even if Joseph's translation contains things he "couldn't have known," it's still provably incorrect.
Sometimes it's difficult to reason about religious things the same way we would about others, so let me give an analogy to try to describe why this argument does not resolve the issue.
Suppose you have in your possession a book, written in Arabic. You don't read Arabic, but you let me take a look at the book. I immediately exclaim, "hey, this is a story about Cinderella!" I take the book from you and proceed to generate a translation, containing an account about Cinderella. Only, some parts are very different; for example, this Cinderella story takes place in outer space.
You then give the book to several of your friends, who are all professors of Arabic. They tell you that the book is the Quran, and predictably doesn't mention Cinderella at all.
What would you think of my ability to translate Arabic? I must be either crazy or deliberately trying to deceive you.
Now, what if you found out that there was actually a large body of space-themed Cinderella fanfiction that I "couldn't possibly have known about?" Does this change the fact that I've clearly just made up a story that is not contained in the document I was translating?
Conclusion: in spite of apologetics on the subject, the current state of the evidence still demonstrates overwhelmingly that Joseph's translation of ancient Egyptian documents is fraudulent, calling into question his ability to "translate" anything.
LDS apologist John Gee, who understands the discrepancy, has said that "those who seek to know the truth of the book of Abraham will have to wait upon the Lord." The idea of "waiting" suggests that we have "no evidence" but that such evidence could be uncovered. This is not the case; what we have, in fact, is another case of contradictory evidence.
1. The Book of Abraham facsimiles are translated incorrectly.
Summary: Joseph Smith claimed to translate an account written by Abraham on papyrus. If you turn to the "facsimiles" in the Book of Abraham, you can see that he had likenesses made of parts of the papyrus, numbered the sections, and gave detailed explanations of the characters and figures in each section. The papyrus still exist and have been examined by modern experts. Joseph's explanations do not remotely agree with the agreed-upon translations by both Mormon and non-Mormon experts. (Here's a link to a translation of part of the papyrus by BYU professor Michael D. Rhodes; here's a complete translation of the entire thing by Robert K. Ritner.)
Significance: Joseph is unique in that he has so far been the only Church President to claim to translate ancient documents; this ability is apparently not utilized by modern church leaders. For most of the revelations and translations produced by Joseph, we have to choose whether or not to take him at his word, as there is no surviving evidence that could give or detract from his account's credibility (for example, according to Joseph, the golden plates were taken back by an angel, so no one today can evaluate them.) The Book of Abraham is the glaring exception; it is the only translation of an ancient document made by Joseph for which we still have the original source document. It seems fair to evaluate Joseph's ability as a translator based on this, the only evidence we have of his ability. Based on scholars' consensus against Joseph, it is clear that he did not possess the ability, divine or otherwise, to translate ancient documents. The fact that he led people to believe he had translated the papyrus makes his incorrect translation fraudulent.
Defense: the Church does not acknowledge the discrepancy between Joseph's translation and that of experts. The Book of Abraham is still a part of the "standard works" of the LDS church and is considered the word of God. It is frequently mentioned in general conference, such as in this 2011 talk by apostle Richard G. Scott on "The Power of Scripture."
FAIR, a group of LDS apologists (people that try to explain why the church could still be true in spite of evidence to the contrary), has responded to the issue of the Book of Abraham generally, but not to the translation of the facsimiles. Here's a link to FAIR's arguments on the topic of the Book of Abraham on topics such as Book of Abraham content and age.
While FAIR does not address the discrepancy either, they do suggest that the Book of Abraham contains things that "Joseph couldn't have known," such as claims of parallels between Book of Abraham names and actual Egyptian names (or Egyptian words mixed with words in other regional languages.) Jeff Lindsay makes a similar argument - "I will agree that a literal translation of the Egyptian characters does not necessarily provide the commentary or "translation" that Joseph added with the figures, but in many cases his comments show surprising correlations with what some scholars have learned in recent years."
Response: The supposed parallels with Egyptian names are debatable; see MormonThink's discussion of the topic here. Still, even if this was a valid point, it's tangential to and does not obviate the problems with the mistranslation of the facsimiles. Even if Joseph's translation contains things he "couldn't have known," it's still provably incorrect.
Sometimes it's difficult to reason about religious things the same way we would about others, so let me give an analogy to try to describe why this argument does not resolve the issue.
Suppose you have in your possession a book, written in Arabic. You don't read Arabic, but you let me take a look at the book. I immediately exclaim, "hey, this is a story about Cinderella!" I take the book from you and proceed to generate a translation, containing an account about Cinderella. Only, some parts are very different; for example, this Cinderella story takes place in outer space.
You then give the book to several of your friends, who are all professors of Arabic. They tell you that the book is the Quran, and predictably doesn't mention Cinderella at all.
What would you think of my ability to translate Arabic? I must be either crazy or deliberately trying to deceive you.
Now, what if you found out that there was actually a large body of space-themed Cinderella fanfiction that I "couldn't possibly have known about?" Does this change the fact that I've clearly just made up a story that is not contained in the document I was translating?
Conclusion: in spite of apologetics on the subject, the current state of the evidence still demonstrates overwhelmingly that Joseph's translation of ancient Egyptian documents is fraudulent, calling into question his ability to "translate" anything.
LDS apologist John Gee, who understands the discrepancy, has said that "those who seek to know the truth of the book of Abraham will have to wait upon the Lord." The idea of "waiting" suggests that we have "no evidence" but that such evidence could be uncovered. This is not the case; what we have, in fact, is another case of contradictory evidence.
List of smoking guns that disprove the LDS church
A brilliant and enterprising Redditor, curious_mormon, has spent a lot of time putting together a list of "smoking guns," things that prove incontrovertibly that the LDS church is not true, and about which no satisfying official or apologetic explanations have ever been given.
The work-in-progress version is here: list of smoking guns. If a more permanent version becomes available, I'll update the link.
Here's a summary of the top 10:
1. The Book of Abraham facsimilies are translated incorrectly. (analysis)
2. The Book of Mormon is filled with Anachronisms. (analysis)
3. The Book of Mormon contains transcription errors from the King James Version of the Bible and other translation errors.
4. An LDS prophet has denied receiving revelation or being a special witness while under oath before congress.
5. LDS prophets have given false prophecies.
6. LDS Apostles and prophets have been taken in, defended, and provided apologetics for frauds and hoaxes.
7. LDS Prophets have denounced or revoked their position on scientific theories that are now (dis)proven, or embarrassing doctrine that is no longer culturally acceptable.
8. Joseph Smith secretly, and illegally practiced polygamy with married women, young teenagers, and servants in his house despite claims and revelation to the contrary.
9. All three witnesses to the Golden Plates have denied physically seeing them. The eight are all related or were part of the production of the Book of Mormon.
10. The doctrine, canon, and rhetoric is filled with contradictions and inconsistencies.
Again, to reiterate, no satisfying defense of any of these points has ever been given. Some attempts have been made to explain some of the discrepancies, but these attempts fall short. In the next little while, I'm going to tackle each of these points, summarize the argument, provide a compilation of apologetic explanations, and then demonstrate why these explanations don't actually resolve the issue.
Edit: the smoking guns are now available in PDF form.
The work-in-progress version is here: list of smoking guns. If a more permanent version becomes available, I'll update the link.
Here's a summary of the top 10:
1. The Book of Abraham facsimilies are translated incorrectly. (analysis)
2. The Book of Mormon is filled with Anachronisms. (analysis)
3. The Book of Mormon contains transcription errors from the King James Version of the Bible and other translation errors.
4. An LDS prophet has denied receiving revelation or being a special witness while under oath before congress.
5. LDS prophets have given false prophecies.
6. LDS Apostles and prophets have been taken in, defended, and provided apologetics for frauds and hoaxes.
7. LDS Prophets have denounced or revoked their position on scientific theories that are now (dis)proven, or embarrassing doctrine that is no longer culturally acceptable.
8. Joseph Smith secretly, and illegally practiced polygamy with married women, young teenagers, and servants in his house despite claims and revelation to the contrary.
9. All three witnesses to the Golden Plates have denied physically seeing them. The eight are all related or were part of the production of the Book of Mormon.
10. The doctrine, canon, and rhetoric is filled with contradictions and inconsistencies.
Again, to reiterate, no satisfying defense of any of these points has ever been given. Some attempts have been made to explain some of the discrepancies, but these attempts fall short. In the next little while, I'm going to tackle each of these points, summarize the argument, provide a compilation of apologetic explanations, and then demonstrate why these explanations don't actually resolve the issue.
Edit: the smoking guns are now available in PDF form.
Saturday, May 19, 2012
No evidence, or contradictory evidence?
When confronted with a story that doesn't seem to align with scientific evidence, such as Noah's Ark or the history of the Americas depicted in the Book of Mormon, a common retort is that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," i.e. just because we don't have evidence of something does not mean it's not true. In some contexts, this principle is very useful. For example, there's no evidence yet of alien life, but that doesn't mean we know there isn't any.
Here, though, this quote is misused. There's a big difference between absence of evidence and presence of contradictory evidence. To explain, I'll deal with both of these examples individually:
There is no evidence that there was ever a global flood that "destroyed all flesh" as told in the Biblical story of Noah's Ark. But beyond having no evidence, we have clear evidence that refutes this story. Some examples: the Egyptian pyramids, which predate the supposed time of the flood, are undisturbed during the period; tree rings, which keep a precise record of precipitation and can consistently record details of local floods, are also undisturbed; the amount of genetic diversity we observe today could not have come about in only a few thousand years; and, there are simply too many species of animal to fit on an ark for a year (in addition to dealing with logistics like what they would all eat, where their waste would go, etc.)
Thus, not only is there no evidence for a global flood, but any new evidence that could possibly be found would need to account for all of this contradictory evidence somehow. As contradictory evidence amasses, this feat approaches impossibility.
Similarly, with the Book of Mormon: there is no clear evidence that the peoples depicted in the book existed in the Americas. But, there are also anachronisms in the Book of Mormon: horses, wheat, chariots, and dozens of other things that we are quite sure (impossible to be certain, but very, very sure) did not exist at the time in the Americas. We also have the fact of Native Americans' genetic lineage coming from Asia, not Israel. Therefore, previously undiscovered evidence that lined up with the account of the Book of Mormon would also have to account for all of these issues, and many more, before it could be considered convincing evidence of the Book of Mormon's veracity. Even if the dates and population numbers matched up with some known civilization, for example, if that civilization didn't have horses, the Book of Mormon couldn't possible be true, because it contains many accounts of horses being used in battle.
It is difficult, perhaps even impossible, to disprove any of these stories. Then again, it's difficult, perhaps even impossible, to disprove any story that has ever been told: not just from other religions, but all fiction that has ever been written. If I were to say that Lord of the Rings was based on historical fact, you could certainly mount compelling evidence to the contrary, but you could never outright prove me wrong.
So, I guess it comes down to this: I'm as certain that Noah's Ark and the Book of Mormon are myths as I am regarding Greek mythology, Lord of the Rings, and Harry Potter.
If you think there is no evidence of something, but that it could be true anyway, you should double-check to make sure that there's actually no evidence either way. Otherwise, it's possible there's just no evidence that supports your belief, but a lot of evidence to the contrary.
Edit: here's another great post by John D. Cook on the same topic.
Think for yourselves, as long as you agree with us
There are many, many topics in the LDS church where conflicting messages are taught together. Here's one such example. The church both encourages free thought and skepticism, and counsels its members to obey their church leaders and never question.
Think for yourself, and don't be afraid to challenge your beliefs
"Convince us of our errors of Doctrine, if we have any, by reason, by logical arguments, or by the Word of God and we will ever be grateful for the information and you will ever have the pleasing reflections that you have been instruments in the hands of God of redeeming your fellow beings."
--Orson Pratt
"If, after a rigid examination, it be found an imposition, it should be extensively published to the world as such; the evidences and arguments on which the imposture was detected, should be clearly and logically stated, that those who have been sincerely yet unfortunately deceived, may perceive the nature of the deception and be reclaimed, and that those who continue to publish the delusion, may be exposed and silenced...."
--Orson Pratt
"And none are required to tamely and blindly submit to a man because he has a portion of the priesthood. We have heard men who hold the priesthood remark, that they would do anything they were told to do by those who presided over them, if they knew it was wrong; but such obedience as this is worse than folly to us; it is slavery in the extreme; and the man who would thus willingly degrade himself should not claim a rank among intelligent beings, until he turns from his folly."
--Charles W. Penrose
"I think a full, free talk is frequently of great use; we want nothing secret nor underhanded, and I for one want no association with things that cannot be talked about and will not bear investigation."
--John Taylor
"If a faith will not bear to be investigated; if its preachers and professors are afraid to have it examined, their foundation must be very weak."
--George A. Smith
"The Book of Mormon can and should be tested. It invites criticism."
--Hugh Nibley
"I admire men and women who have developed the questing spirit, who are unafraid of new ideas as stepping stones to progress. We should, of course, respect the opinions of others, but we should also be unafraid to dissent – if we are informed. Thoughts and expressions compete in the marketplace of thought, and in that competition truth emerges triumphant. Only error fears freedom of expression."
--Hugh B. Brown
"We should be scientific – that is, open-minded, approaching new problems without prejudice, deferring a decision until all the facts are in."
--Hugh B. Brown
"The church is not so much concerned with whether the thoughts of its members are orthodox or heterodox as it is that they shall have thoughts. One may memorize much without learning anything....
"And while all members should respect, support, and heed the teachings of the authorities of the church, no one should accept a statement and base his or her testimony upon it, no matter who makes it, until he or she has, under mature examination, found it to be true and worthwhile..."
--Hugh B. Brown
"If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed."
--J. Ruben Clark
Beware of thinking for yourself; just do what we tell you
The preceding quotes about being willing to investigate and think openly about your beliefs are a sharp contrast to these more recent ones, which cast your own thoughts as enemies:
"Should doubt knock at your doorway, just say to those skeptical, disturbing, rebellious thoughts: 'I propose to stay with my faith, with the faith of my people. I know that happiness and contentment are there, and I forbid you, agnostic, doubting thoughts, to destroy the house of my faith. I acknowledge that I do not understand the processes of creation, but I accept the fact of it. I grant that I cannot explain the miracles of the Bible, and I do not attempt to do so, but I accept God’s word. I wasn’t with Joseph, but I believe him. My faith did not come to me through science, and I will not permit so-called science to destroy it."
--Thomas S. Monson
"When the Prophet speaks the debate is over."
--N. Eldon Tanner
"No true Latter-day Saint will ever take a stand that is in opposition to what the Lord has revealed to those who direct the affairs of his earthly kingdom. No Latter-day Saint who is true and faithful in all things will ever pursue a course, or espouse a cause, or publish an article or book that weakens or destroys faith."
--Bruce R. McConkie
"Some things that are true are not very useful... In an effort to be objective, impartial, and scholarly, a writer or a teacher may unwittingly be giving equal time to the adversary... In the Church we are not neutral. We are one-sided. There is a war going on, and we are engaged in it... The fact that something is already in print or available from another source is no excuse for using potentially damaging materials in writing, speaking, or teaching."
--Boyd K. Packer
"Some things that are true are not edifying or appropriate to communicate. Readers of history and biography should ponder that moral reality as part of their effort to understand the significance of what they read."
--Dallin H. Oaks
"Satan can even use truth to promote his purposes. Facts, severed from their context, can convey an erroneous impression."
--Dallin H. Oaks
"Those men and women who persist in publicly challenging basic doctrines, practices, and establishment of the Church sever themselves from the Spirit of the Lord and forfeit their right to place and influence in the Church.... There is a certain arrogance in thinking that any of us may be more spiritually intelligent, more learned, or more righteous than the Councils called to preside over us."
--James E. Faust
Think for yourself, and don't be afraid to challenge your beliefs
"Convince us of our errors of Doctrine, if we have any, by reason, by logical arguments, or by the Word of God and we will ever be grateful for the information and you will ever have the pleasing reflections that you have been instruments in the hands of God of redeeming your fellow beings."
--Orson Pratt
"If, after a rigid examination, it be found an imposition, it should be extensively published to the world as such; the evidences and arguments on which the imposture was detected, should be clearly and logically stated, that those who have been sincerely yet unfortunately deceived, may perceive the nature of the deception and be reclaimed, and that those who continue to publish the delusion, may be exposed and silenced...."
--Orson Pratt
"And none are required to tamely and blindly submit to a man because he has a portion of the priesthood. We have heard men who hold the priesthood remark, that they would do anything they were told to do by those who presided over them, if they knew it was wrong; but such obedience as this is worse than folly to us; it is slavery in the extreme; and the man who would thus willingly degrade himself should not claim a rank among intelligent beings, until he turns from his folly."
--Charles W. Penrose
"I think a full, free talk is frequently of great use; we want nothing secret nor underhanded, and I for one want no association with things that cannot be talked about and will not bear investigation."
--John Taylor
"If a faith will not bear to be investigated; if its preachers and professors are afraid to have it examined, their foundation must be very weak."
--George A. Smith
"The Book of Mormon can and should be tested. It invites criticism."
--Hugh Nibley
"I admire men and women who have developed the questing spirit, who are unafraid of new ideas as stepping stones to progress. We should, of course, respect the opinions of others, but we should also be unafraid to dissent – if we are informed. Thoughts and expressions compete in the marketplace of thought, and in that competition truth emerges triumphant. Only error fears freedom of expression."
--Hugh B. Brown
"We should be scientific – that is, open-minded, approaching new problems without prejudice, deferring a decision until all the facts are in."
--Hugh B. Brown
"The church is not so much concerned with whether the thoughts of its members are orthodox or heterodox as it is that they shall have thoughts. One may memorize much without learning anything....
"And while all members should respect, support, and heed the teachings of the authorities of the church, no one should accept a statement and base his or her testimony upon it, no matter who makes it, until he or she has, under mature examination, found it to be true and worthwhile..."
--Hugh B. Brown
"If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed."
--J. Ruben Clark
Beware of thinking for yourself; just do what we tell you
The preceding quotes about being willing to investigate and think openly about your beliefs are a sharp contrast to these more recent ones, which cast your own thoughts as enemies:
"Should doubt knock at your doorway, just say to those skeptical, disturbing, rebellious thoughts: 'I propose to stay with my faith, with the faith of my people. I know that happiness and contentment are there, and I forbid you, agnostic, doubting thoughts, to destroy the house of my faith. I acknowledge that I do not understand the processes of creation, but I accept the fact of it. I grant that I cannot explain the miracles of the Bible, and I do not attempt to do so, but I accept God’s word. I wasn’t with Joseph, but I believe him. My faith did not come to me through science, and I will not permit so-called science to destroy it."
--Thomas S. Monson
"When the Prophet speaks the debate is over."
--N. Eldon Tanner
"No true Latter-day Saint will ever take a stand that is in opposition to what the Lord has revealed to those who direct the affairs of his earthly kingdom. No Latter-day Saint who is true and faithful in all things will ever pursue a course, or espouse a cause, or publish an article or book that weakens or destroys faith."
--Bruce R. McConkie
"Some things that are true are not very useful... In an effort to be objective, impartial, and scholarly, a writer or a teacher may unwittingly be giving equal time to the adversary... In the Church we are not neutral. We are one-sided. There is a war going on, and we are engaged in it... The fact that something is already in print or available from another source is no excuse for using potentially damaging materials in writing, speaking, or teaching."
--Boyd K. Packer
"Some things that are true are not edifying or appropriate to communicate. Readers of history and biography should ponder that moral reality as part of their effort to understand the significance of what they read."
--Dallin H. Oaks
"Satan can even use truth to promote his purposes. Facts, severed from their context, can convey an erroneous impression."
--Dallin H. Oaks
"Those men and women who persist in publicly challenging basic doctrines, practices, and establishment of the Church sever themselves from the Spirit of the Lord and forfeit their right to place and influence in the Church.... There is a certain arrogance in thinking that any of us may be more spiritually intelligent, more learned, or more righteous than the Councils called to preside over us."
--James E. Faust
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)