There
is much talk these days about doubt. Much of the reason, at least for members
of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons), is the recent
article in the New York Times about
Hans Mattson’s doubts and uncertainties.
Mattson
was an Area Authority for the Mormon Church in Europe, a position of no small
sway. He had grown in his understanding of the Church the way most Mormons do:
by attending classes and reading church-recommended literature. Unfortunately,
this doctrinal fare left him without answers when he came upon anti-Mormon
literature that he didn’t understand. This burden seems to have had a very
troubling effect on his faith. I feel bad for him.
As a
recently returned missionary, I was once asked by a former school-mate to
attend a meeting with some friends. When I arrived I got a surprise. The room
was occupied by several adults that all had an axe to grind. They all wanted to
expose me to the errors of my church and convert me to their own brand of
religion. They were persistent and didn’t concern themselves one bit about the
stress that this attack on my faith might cause me. I left the meeting unable
to answer many of their questions. I had never been exposed to them before.
They weren’t questions that ever came up in my seminary, Sunday school or
priesthood classes. I was a bit traumatized.
Some
months later I happened upon a volume by Hugh Nibley titled Lehi in the Desert. This is a book
showing the remarkable similarities between the Near East (during the time of
the Book of Mormon journey of Lehi
and his family) and the incidents narrated in the first Book of Nephi in the Book of Mormon. The book is an argument
against those who had criticized the Book
of Mormon for being naïve and uninformed – and thence false. I couldn’t put
the book down. Here at last was a Latter-day Saint scholar who wasn’t afraid to
respond to our critics. In coming years I would continue devouring Nibley’s
books and many other writings by informed Mormon scholars.
Nibley
wrote a lot of things and his work catalyzed a small army of Mormon apologists with
expertise in various fields of study. Much of this work has been published by
the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS), an organization
that I have followed for decades.
Within
the FARMS Review (and it’s various
other names) lie hundreds of responses to Mormon detractors. One can read these
responses without having to burden oneself with the negativity of anti-Mormon
authors themselves. All it takes is a little exposure to this literature to
realize that we Latter-day Saints have a lot of answers to the many criticisms
of our detractors. And these answers are quite impressive, and often faith
promoting. Sadly, though, very few members of the church take the time to read
any of this – or even know that this literature exists. This is even true of
some church leaders, as Mattson’s example shows.
It is
time that we give a bit more heed to these issues. This is, in fact, the
scriptural admonition for those of us that become exposed to deceit:
“Wherefore, beware lest ye be
deceived…” (Doctrine and Covenants 46:8); “Take heed to yourselves, that your heart be not deceived, and ye turn
aside, and serve other gods…” (Deuteronomy 11:16); “And Jesus answered and said
unto them, Take heed that no man
deceive you.” (my italics).
What
exactly does “heed” mean? It means to pay attention to, to take notice of, or
to be careful about. And paying close attention to the swirl of opinions and
deceit all around us is something we very much need. But what I want to
specifically point out is that playing close attention also involves a healthy
dose of doubt. I know this will be denied by many well-meaning and faithful
persons. Doubt, after all, is what the scriptures tell us to avoid. Before you
discard my argument, however, consider a couple of the most important
definitions of doubt.
Doubt
can be a denial of, or a hesitation about, divine things. This is the meaning
we normally intend when we contrast doubt with faith. This is what Bruce R.
McConkie means when he writes, “Faith and belief are of God; doubt and
skepticism are of the devil.”
But
doubt can also involve a healthy amount of questioning. Doubt, according to
John Henry Newman, is just one of three ways of holding a proposition. “A
question is the expression of a doubt… To doubt, for instance, is not to see
one’s way…” If we are not to be deceived; and if the greatest modern sources of
deception lie in the swelter of specious religious advocacy groups and their
ever-increasing volumes of propaganda; than taking heed must involve a great
deal of skepticism. In a word, giving heed needs to involve this questioning
form of doubt.
Yet,
sadly, the majority of Latter-day Saints are not at all prepared to take this
kind of heed. And the by-product of this lack is a vulnerability to deceit.
I have
been watching this happen over a number of years in my own extended family. It
is a painful thing to see. The process is now almost too obvious to me: a
faithful member of the Church comes across some anti-Mormon literature; The
information comes as a great shock, which is often followed by pain and a
feeling of betrayal, which is then often followed by a falling away from the
faith.
In the
cases I am aware of, the shock of discovering critical arguments about the
Church is caused primarily because of a lack of previous exposure to these
arguments. It comes because we have not taught are youth to question for
ourselves. It may be true (it is certainly true) that Mormon doctrine requires
that we find answers for ourselves. But it is also sadly true that we often
give only one narrative to our varied history. We never tell our youth that
other people see things differently than we do. We don’t ask our youth to give
heed to potential challenges.
This
may sound critical. I guess it is. I don’t mean to be completely negative
though. We, as members of the Church, do a marvelous job of encouraging
everyone to find truth by seeking and doing. This is clearly the pattern
outlined in sacred literature. But following the spirit and proceeding through
our uncertainties with an active faith are the second part of avoiding
deception. The first part is to give heed. And this is the part we stand in
great need of improving. Without it, our friends and loved-ones will continue
to be shocked by falsehoods and partial truths and then lose their faith. It is
certainly time to start questioning a little more. We need to feel comfortable
doubting all these claims.
Let’s
look a little more closely at a few words. Let’s compare the words faith and
credulity. Faith is confidence, trust, or experiential belief. It carries with
it a motivational mindset. It is the underlying foundation of all action, as we
learn in the Lectures on Faith.
Credulity, on the other hand, is an over readiness to believe, or a disposition
to believe on weak or insufficient grounds.
These
two words stand in contrast to the two concepts we’ve just been considering, I
mean doubt and disbelief. Where doubt involves questioning and a certain
tentativeness; disbelief, like credulity, is quicker to proceed – or perhaps
quicker to draw conclusions. Both disbelief and credulity are often poorly
informed. Doubt, on the other hand (at least in Newman’s sense), is cautious
and looks for more answers as it proceeds.
We
love the innocence of children. We see a hint of the divine in their purity and
sense the light of Christ in their countenance. And Christ has asked us to be
more like them. But children can often be credulous. And we might mistakenly
assume that in our modeling of children, we are expected to blindly believe as
they often do.
Paul
was himself quite worried about this among the Corinthian saints. “But I fear,
lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your
minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ” (2 Corinthians
11:3).
It is
interesting that Paul would use this image of the serpent. It is the same image
that Christ used when admonishing His disciples to be “wise as serpents, and
harmless as doves” (Matthew 10:16).
And in
a little-known scripture that I love, the author of Proverbs asks that
knowledge and understanding not, “depart from thine eyes: keep sound wisdom and
discretion: so shall they be life unto thy soul… then shalt thou walk in the
way safely, and thy foot shall not stumble”. (Proverbs 3: 21-23).
I
think the word discretion is particularly appropriate here, especially the
meaning it bears of cautious judgment and discrimination. There is clearly no
blind faith implied here.
But in
our church, I see a lot of credulity and a need for a great deal more
discretion in gospel teaching. I see far too many persons advancing chronologically
through our various curricula developing a sense of absolute opinion on
questions of history and doctrine – when uncertainty needs to be acknowledged.
If we do this right, there is no need to worry. Terryl Givens (in an important
fireside address in Palo Alto, California) rejoiced in this uncertainty.
He
said, “in this world, one is always provided with sufficient materials out of
which to fashion a life of credible conviction or dismissive denial.” And in a
candid moment admitted that “I am grateful for a propensity to doubt, because
it gives me the capacity to freely believe.”
On the
other hand credulity, though certainly not a sin, is very much a vulnerability.
I have seen it up close in my own extended family when an individual learned about
Joseph Smith’s relationship with a young woman named Fanny Alger. Polygamy is
one of those subjects that we hardly talk about in the Church. We certainly
ignore the occasional unsavory examples that did exist.
We
shouldn’t be surprised that the anti-Mormon crowd relishes the thought of
Joseph Smith as an adulterer and libertine. Even Oliver Cowdery hinted to the
same effect when Joseph became involved with the young woman (Fanny) that had
been working as a maid in his home. What Oliver did not know was that Joseph
and Fanny had been married.
This
happened at the time when Joseph was struggling to deal with the issues of
plural marriage – being required to bring back the ancient practice, but
hesitating because of the resistance he expected. For believing Latter-day
Saints it is understandable that Joseph would feel the need to keep this early
effort quiet.
Critics
of the church almost always fail to mention the visit that Joseph made to
Fanny’s parents asking for permission to marry her – permission that was
readily granted. Yes there are other polygamous cases that look funny to us,
cases where the plural wives seem to have been married already. But we make a
serious mistake pretending to understand the situations involved. We have
marriage records and a handful of letters and diaries, but very little of
specific contexts.
Susan
Easton Black mentioned years ago (in a class I took from her) that one can find
every sort of experience in the Mormon history of polygamy. This experience
ranges from the tragic to the sublime. The historical reality is that thousands
of highly spiritually sensitive persons (including several remarkably
independent individuals) knew and loved Joseph and would not have followed a
libertine as they followed Joseph.
Why
can’t we talk about this more openly? It can come as a surprise, for sure. But
if we don’t bring it up in an environment of faith, it will very likely come up
in an environment of disbelief. In such an environment in will not only shock,
it can spiritually maim.
We
already have a rudimentary sense of apologetics in the Church. We can build on
this. As a young missionary I learned of the oft-repeated argument found in the
Book of Revelation (the last book in the Bible) that God would punish those who
added to His words (implying that subsequently revealed scriptures were not
possible). I learned, however, that there is a similar text found in the Book
of Deuteronomy (a book found towards the beginning of the Bible). This second
scripture made it obvious that the divine warning at the end of the Bible was
really a warning only for the Book of Revelation. The implication being that God
can continue instructing His children and that revelation from God to man need
not cease.
This
is a simple example. Anti-Mormon literature today can be more subtle, malicious,
and just mean. It is also more available (through the internet) and more
organized. It is unlikely that any active Latter-day Saint today will escape
this onslaught – whether it comes to friends, to loved ones or to oneself. We
need to know how to handle the shock that comes when we get exposed to
criticisms of our faith.
One of
the normal responses to this exposure is betrayal. “How is that I have been a
member of the Church all my life and have never heard of this before?” is a
typical feeling. Elder Mattson (though not a member all of his life) seems to
have felt this way.
We
should be more aware of credulity and of its vulnerability, more serious about
real scholarship. We will be shown the direction the Church has chosen to
follow at the end of the year – with the new format for our organ of
apologetics (that will displace the Mormon Studies Review). It will deserve our
studied care, whatever form it takes.
I am
not suggesting that we hurry to our Sunday School classes and begin troubling
others with contrarieties. But I am suggesting that we not shy away from teaching
moments when they come. I am also convinced that we should stop disparaging those
that have questions.
I have
a handful of questions about my faith – questions that our best scholarship
does not entirely resolve, at least to me. But I have the advantage of an
empirical background. As a scientist I know that rational certainty is a rare
luxury. And even on those subjects that I wonder about, I recognize that nobody
has a clear understanding on these issues. Why should I lose my faith over such
uncertainties?
This
is where my uncertainty and questioning – my doubt, if you will, are a great
blessing. They keep me grounded in a world of false accusations and pointed
criticisms. When I learn of these religious attacks, I have the benefit of
several defenses. I know where to find a vast literature of faithful responses.
I know that certainty on these issues is not likely. And I know that better
minds than my own, have faithfully handled these issues already, and give me
motivation to keep looking for answers. A healthy attitude of questioning is a
very valuable asset to anyone with faith.
In the
end, let us focus on faith and not belief. Faith is a total vital response, as
Wilfred Cantwell Smith reminded us years ago. Belief is the rational
inclination to propositions. It can trouble us to no-end if we imagine that it
is our ultimate goal – it shouldn’t be. It is faith that draws us to Heaven and
informs our spiritual lives. Faith is the answer to doubt, and it has nothing to
fear from uncertainty.
References
The FARMS Review grew out of the Review of Books on the Book of Mormon;
later the FARMS Review of Books;
later, The FARMS Review; and most
recently, Mormon Studies Review –
which will be changing itself again by the end of the year. McConkie’s
statement on doubt comes from Mormon
Doctrine (page 208 in the Second edition (1966) under “doubt”). John Henry
Newman’s statement on doubt comes from his very important A Grammar of Assent (page 4 in my 1947 edition published by
Longman’s, Green and Company). Terryl Givens address entitled Letter to a Doubter can be found at: terrylgivens.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Letter-to-a-Doubter.pdf.
For a discussion of the Fanny Alger question see Richard Bushman’s Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling,
published in 2005 by Alfred A. Knopf. Wilfred Cantwell Smith’s comparison of
faith and belief can be found in his book by that name: Faith and Belief.
