On Testimony, Confirmation Bias, and Belief

[MG 2.0]

I have actually been attending occasionally. I’m dating a TBM woman I’ve known for a very long time, and I’m enjoying church on my own terms. When I visit her—she lives in another state—I go with her. I’ve found that when you don’t have unruly kids sitting next to you, as I did for many years, you can actually pay attention to what’s going on, and some of it is genuinely interesting.

If you want to blend in, a beard is fine, but I’d suggest a white or light-colored button-down shirt with dark slacks, and possibly a dark, solid-color tie. If you really want to blend in and are comfortable doing so, a dark suit with a white shirt and tie is what about half the men will be wearing.

I’d recommend arriving a few minutes early and sitting toward the back in one of the side pews. You’ll probably have one or two people come up and introduce themselves. You can simply say, “Hi, I’m John, and I’m just visiting.” If the missionaries approach you, you can use the same response and politely decline further information.

If you feel motivated, after the Fast & Testimony (F&T) meeting—which lasts one hour—there is an adult, hour-long class called Gospel Doctrine that’s open to everyone. It will give you a sense of how instructional classes are presented, and you may find it quite interesting. This year’s lessons focus on the Old Testament. Most classes take a scripture passage or a talk by a senior church leader and examine how it supports what Mormons are expected to believe and how they are encouraged to act.

The F&T meeting begins with announcements, followed by an opening hymn and an opening prayer. Next comes what is called the sacrament, which is preceded by another hymn. A group of teenage boys will pray over small pieces of bread, which are then distributed to the congregation. After the bread, the same boys pray over small cups of water, which are also passed out. You are not required to take either the bread or the water—you can simply pass the tray along to the next person. You may also take it if you wish; no one will care either way.

After the sacrament, the meeting is opened for members of the congregation who wish to, to stand and bear their testimonies. The meeting then concludes with a closing hymn and a closing prayer. All hymns are sung by the congregation.

When the meeting ends, you can either leave or ask any adult where the Gospel Doctrine class meets. You may even find the class more interesting than the F&T meeting itself. It is taught by a designated instructor and begins and ends with a prayer offered by a volunteer.

That about nails it.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

You have to keep having the same lessons because either:

• you're like a child, and need milk before meat, and/or
• god knows that you didn't learn well enough the first dozen times

The curriculum rotates between the four standard works of the church:

The Bible-Old Testament
The Bible-New Testament
The Book of Mormon
The Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price

The lessons are designed to discuss/teach the principles/people/gospel as experienced/taught in these four sacred books of scripture.

No real surprise.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

My father (a bishop, HP group leader, etc.) often responded with the “milk before meat” line whenever I tried to discuss doctrinal issues I was struggling with. It would frustrate the hell out of me. Over the years, I’ve heard the same phrase from others as well, including several Institute and BYU instructors. I’ve come to believe it’s used as a thought-stopping mechanism to shut down discussion of topics that might threaten someone’s testimony, which, in practice, means anything beyond the scrubbed, correlated material. It’s just another tool in the Church’s arsenal to ensure that dialogue remains narrowly confined to the approved curriculum.

At church, that is pretty much the case. The reason being, I think, is that church is a congregation of ALL the saints and a place for edification and strengthening testimony and desire to live the basic principles of the gospel.

The meat is available at/in other venues. I've taken advantage of partaking. Others don't. That's fine.

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

I realize this may sound a bit conspiratorial, but I’ve honestly had the thought that critics still being on the rolls might be on purpose. As if critics are assigned a role as opposition by the church as a sort of calling because a plan built on opposition and testing would need internal friction. Alternatively, Joseph, seeing an opportunity to further his goals, may have incorporated apostasy into his theology. I haven’t pursued that thought very far, but it’s crossed my mind.

My view.

The church and its critics are involved in a complex dance. Disciplinary action against a member may attract more attention to issues, but public disagreements with church teachings can be seen to be challenging the leaders, and that does not go down well in an organization with a hierarchical authoritarian structure.

Members have been told that it is wrong to criticise church leaders, even if the criticism is true, but critics like me, for example, are very unlikely ever to face church discipline - I'm simply too low key, invisible, not influential.

If I start to show up at church and make waves, I would expect the bishop to talk to me. If I persisted, and/or caused other members to start questioning church teachings, then the stake president might get involved. But unless I attracted a noticeable following, that's likely as far as it would go - with me perhaps being politely invited to stay away, or perhaps not so politely threatened with a restraining order, though that would not be "normal".

As my fame and following grow (!) I'll be seen as more of a problem to be dealt with, and may eventually be offered a choice of a "court of love", in which I could expect to be excommunicated, or to disavow my previous statements, take down internet postings etc.

[Marcus]

For those not familiar with some of the apologetic thinking on this topic, have a look at:

Peterson, Daniel C. (2007) "Editor's Introduction, Reflections on the Reactions to Rough Stone Rolling and
Related Matters," Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 1989–2011: Vol. 19 : No. 1 , Article 2.
Available at: https://scholarsarchive.BYU.edu/msr/vol19/iss1/2

and search for "Stanley B. Kimball".


I'll leave this here without comment.

This is (maybe obviously to everyone) a risk analysis with a recommendation calculated to maintain the most adherents.

A less wordy Summary Recommendation: Informed ambiguity produces more resilient faith, but more transparency will lead to reduced membership. Therefore, we recommend the Church be cautious with transparency to intentionally keep most members at level A. Not necessarily because A is more truthy or false, but because that’s how retention works best.

The lds corporation is indeed a business, and needs to retain tithe payers in order to continue financing their for-profit efforts, as well as their penchant for hoarding money. (Ultimately, whether they intended it or not, I am hoping a fair amount of this will go to court-ordered sexual assault victim compensation, so the hoarding is useful in that sense.)

Also critics are the worst.

[malkie]

This is (maybe obviously to everyone) a risk analysis with a recommendation calculated to maintain the most adherents.

A less wordy Summary Recommendation: Informed ambiguity produces more resilient faith, but more transparency will lead to reduced membership. Therefore, we recommend the Church be cautious with transparency to intentionally keep most members at level A. Not necessarily because A is more truthy or false, but because that’s how retention works best.

The LDS corporation is indeed a business, and needs to retain tithe payers in order to continue financing their for-profit efforts, as well as their penchant for hoarding money. (Ultimately, whether they intended it or not, I am hoping a fair amount of this will go to court-ordered sexual assault victim compensation, so the hoarding is useful in that sense.)

Also critics are the worst.

Don't laugh, Marcus - it's true!

[Limnor]

If I start to show up at church and make waves, I would expect the bishop to talk to me. If I persisted, and/or caused other members to start questioning church teachings, then the stake president might get involved. But unless I attracted a noticeable following, that's likely as far as it would go - with me perhaps being politely invited to stay away, or perhaps not so politely threatened with a restraining order, though that would not be "normal".

As my fame and following grow (!) I'll be seen as more of a problem to be dealt with, and may eventually be offered a choice of a "court of love", in which I could expect to be excommunicated, or to disavow my previous statements, take down internet postings etc.

This is an interesting thought—it sounds like an iteration that as discipline is on a sliding scale as compared to influence rather than error, then obedience—not truth—is the value needing protected.

[MG 2.0]

If I start to show up at church and make waves, I would expect the bishop to talk to me. If I persisted, and/or caused other members to start questioning church teachings, then the stake president might get involved. But unless I attracted a noticeable following, that's likely as far as it would go - with me perhaps being politely invited to stay away, or perhaps not so politely threatened with a restraining order, though that would not be "normal".

As my fame and following grow (!) I'll be seen as more of a problem to be dealt with, and may eventually be offered a choice of a "court of love", in which I could expect to be excommunicated, or to disavow my previous statements, take down internet postings etc.

This is an interesting thought—it sounds like an iteration that as discipline is on a sliding scale as compared to influence rather than error, then obedience—not truth—is the value needing protected.

From the point of view of leaders, which of course enters into the picture, we might also consider the possibility that they are coming at this from a position of protecting the flock so that they can receive truth, while also realizing/acknowledging practical restraints on transparency and debate. They have to draw the line somewhere. The line is more often than not drawn at the point where "the flock" is protected from "issues" so that they can continue to receive "truth".

There is an element of trust, obviously, in giving leaders the benefit of a doubt as to where that line is. At times they may have misjudged, but as a general rule I think they do a pretty good job.

Regards,
MG

[Fence Sitter]

This is an interesting thought—it sounds like an iteration that as discipline is on a sliding scale as compared to influence rather than error, then obedience—not truth—is the value needing protected.

Church discipline for apostasy is interesting in how it functions at the highest level, when one’s actual membership is on the line. A member can be excommunicated in a church court for a variety of moral sins—such as adultery, theft, assault, murder, and the like—but when it comes to doctrinal disagreements, one is not disciplined simply for holding or expressing contrary views. Rather, discipline occurs for failing to stop expressing those views or for refusing to disavow them.

The process generally works like this: a member attracts enough negative attention for a particular doctrinal opinion or historical interpretation that leadership comes to see it as damaging to or incompatible with the church. That member is then called in by local leadership—either on their own initiative or at the direction of leaders in Salt Lake—and is instructed to cease expressing the views in question.

If the member persists, he or she is summoned before a church court and tried, not for the substance of the beliefs themselves, but for failing to follow the direction given by church leaders. Attempts by the member to argue that their views are valid or well-supported are not permitted, because the charge is disobedience rather than doctrinal error. This structure allows lay leadership to avoid having to defend or formally articulate the church’s position on the disputed issue during the proceedings.

[Limnor]

This is an interesting thought—it sounds like an iteration that as discipline is on a sliding scale as compared to influence rather than error, then obedience—not truth—is the value needing protected.

From the point of view of leaders, which of course enters into the picture, we might also consider the possibility that they are coming at this from a position of protecting the flock so that they can receive truth, while also realizing/acknowledging practical restraints on transparency and debate. They have to draw the line somewhere. The line is more often than not drawn at the point where "the flock" is protected from "issues" so that they can continue to receive "truth".

There is an element of trust, obviously, in giving leaders the benefit of a doubt as to where that line is. At times they may have misjudged, but as a general rule I think they do a pretty good job.

Regards,
MG

Sure—some truths are filtered so that another kind of truth can still be believed.