On Testimony, Confirmation Bias, and Belief

[Limnor]

If venues like Sunstone or Dialogue are accessible but not institutionally approved, then truth isn’t being restricted so much as compartmentalized. Privately allowed so long as it’s silent and discernment is deferred. I’m learning here that discernment isn’t valued as highly as in perhaps other faith systems. Is there an understanding among members of the risk associated with abdicating personal discernment and judgment?

[MG 2.0]

If venues like Sunstone or Dialogue are accessible but not institutionally approved, then truth isn’t being restricted so much as compartmentalized. Privately allowed so long as it’s silent and discernment is deferred. I’m learning here that discernment isn’t valued as highly as in perhaps other faith systems. Is there an understanding among members of the risk associated with abdicating personal discernment and judgment?

One thing that might help you understand LDS folks, Limnor. It should be acknowledged that there is a real tension between the church's emphasis on obedience, which obviously would include obedience to leaders, and the value of personal judgement. I would posit that the restriction of 'advanced theological discussion' in formal church settings is a practical necessity, not a rejection of truth seeking.

Discernment is valued for personal application and spiritual confirmation. Believing members, however, go into this process of discerning truth knowing/believing that they are not inquiring in regards to or critiquing the doctrinal positions or teachings of the church. Unlimited open doctrinal debate in congregational settings could damage faith and unity, which the church/leaders see as essential for spiritual health and unity of the faith. It's kind of the "if ye are not one, ye are not mine" concept that the Savior taught. One faith, one Lord, one baptism.

The early/ancient saints had a difficult time with this. Splintering didn't take very long. The church teaches correlated doctrine to encourage a unity of faith in the household of faith. Personally, I don't have a problem with that.

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

The problem is that when discernment is not allowed to evaluate doctrinal or leadership claims, the system has no way to hold authority accountable if false statements are made.

By the way, the phrase “if ye are not one, ye are not mine” comes from the D&C—not from the Savior.

You mention the early fracturing of the church—does the same logic apply to Mormonism? How do you know which sect is the correct sect within Mormonism?

Edited to add: The early church didn’t splinter because people debated doctrine—rather it debated doctrine because unity and authority had not yet been settled. The unity that later emerged was a result of resolution following that, not enforced in advance.

[Dr. Sunstoned]

Thank you for the reply. These are venues that I have also been involved with, but they are not "official" church offerings. As far as I know, the church has no program (or intention) to move members beyond the very basic, sanitized correlated materials.

Well, they haven't in my lifetime.

I don't expect them to and I don't expect they will.

From what I remember of your postings on this board, you teach at UVU. Cool.

We're in the same neck of the woods if that is so.

Regards,
MG

Yes, I'm at UVU. For a while, anyway. I actually quit last year, right after charly kirk was shot. It was very traumatic, as I always (very naïvely) considered the university my safe place. My Dean talked me out of leaving.

[malkie]

The problem is that when discernment is not allowed to evaluate doctrinal or leadership claims, the system has no way to hold authority accountable if false statements are made.

If a leader's statement is later shown to be false, one of the reasons commonly given is that he was "only speaking as a man", and not as a representative of Mormon god. Unfortunately this is almost exclusively post hoc - there is usually no way to be sure in real time if the statement is considered officially true or false, if it will be supported or disavowed.

When Joseph Smith described lunar quakers, or Brigham Young talked about the inhabitants of the sun, or Joseph Fielding Smith said, during a Stake Conference, that man would never reach the moon, faithful members thought that they were hearing a prophet speaking, and that they should believe what they were told.

After Paul H Dunn, a Seventy, repeatedly told tall tales in his role as an assigned speaker in various conferences, members testified that the "spirit" confirmed the truth of his fabrications. Many missionaries carried Dunn's books or tapes for inspiration and comfort.

All of these examples, and many more, were brushed off later as these servants of god speaking as men. Unfortunately for the believing members, none of them admitted to speaking as men at the time. Nor did any of the General Authorities who listened to Dunn's fabricated stories delivered in General Conference manage to discern the lies. Of course, all of them were likely listening as fallible men, and not as apostles. Still, with more than a decade of talks with fake stories, and usually at least 20 General Authorities present each time, you might expect that one time, one of them might have been warned by the spirit that they were unwittingly allowing lies to be promulgated from the pulpit.

[MG 2.0]

By the way, the phrase “if ye are not one, ye are not mine” comes from the D&C—not from the Savior.

That's debatable.

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

By the way, the phrase “if ye are not one, ye are not mine” comes from the D&C—not from the Savior.

That's debatable.

Regards,
MG

Fair—I’ll clarify. That phrase doesn’t appear in the New Testament. I don’t accept the D&C as revelation.

[I Have Questions]

The problem is that when discernment is not allowed to evaluate doctrinal or leadership claims, the system has no way to hold authority accountable if false statements are made.

If a leader's statement is later shown to be false, one of the reasons commonly given is that he was "only speaking as a man", and not as a representative of Mormon god. Unfortunately this is almost exclusively post hoc - there is usually no way to be sure in real time if the statement is considered officially true or false, if it will be supported or disavowed.

You can always trust the living Prophet, until he’s dead. And then he’s not to be trusted at all. It’s cult behaviour. Members will sustain today as “true” something, anything, that is the opposite of what they sustained as “true” yesterday. And then gaslight themselves into thinking it was always so.

[Dr. Shades]

Yes, I'm at UVU. For a while, anyway. I actually quit last year, right after charly kirk was shot. It was very traumatic, as I always (very naïvely) considered the university my safe place. My Dean talked me out of leaving.

So your thinking was that if you quit the university, you're safe from being shot?

[Dr. Sunstoned]

Yes, I'm at UVU. For a while, anyway. I actually quit last year, right after charly kirk was shot. It was very traumatic, as I always (very naïvely) considered the university my safe place. My Dean talked me out of leaving.

So your thinking was that if you quit the university, you're safe from being shot?

I know that is not reality. I did a poor job of expressing myself. When I used the safe word, I was referring to mental and emotional safety. I love education, especially higher education. This tragic event, which happened on my campus, affected me at levels that I was unaware that I didn't know I had. It sent me into therapy for the first time in my life.