David Bokovoy and a Kuhnian Approach to Mormonism

[_Runtu]

Since I can't respond over on the other board, I hope David doesn't mind if I hijack his thread:

Is there ever a good reason to abandon Mormonism?

Not if one has obtained a spiritual witness from God concerning the truthfulness of the Church. Still, throughout our lives, many of us encounter pieces of doctrinal and/or historical information that appears to indicate that we have been deceived, that in fact Mormonism is not true.

In these moments, perhaps before doubting our spiritual convictions, we should approach our concerns from the perspective of a paradigm shift, meaning a change in the basic assumptions concerning Mormonism that we hold to be true.

In other words, perhaps the only thing that we have encountered that is untrue is our basic assumption concerning the doctrine and/or historical information rather than the Church itself.

Rather than abandoning the Church of Jesus Christ, I believe that every issue that ever troubles our members may simply require a paradigm shift. I could provide many examples that support my view, but the one that comes immediately to mind is an experience that I had with a student who came to the conclusion that the Church cannot be true because of something portrayed in the temple ceremony.

I will not discuss the details of temple worship, but suffice it to say that the student felt troubled over the fact that in D&C 129, the Lord reveals that “when a messenger comes saying he has a message from God,” we should offer him our hand and “request him to shake hands” (v. 4). The revelation states that if the messenger is a spirit of a just man that the angel will not move to shake hands with us, “for it is contrary to the order of heaven for a just man to deceive; but he will still deliver his message” (v. 7).

Without going into details, the student felt that this revelation contradicts part of the ritual portrayal featured in the endowment. The individual felt troubled enough by this “contradiction” that he/or she had come to the conclusion that the Church is not true.

In this instance, I tied to explain that perhaps what is not true is not the Church itself, but rather the paradigm that the student used to interpret the endowment. The student assumed that the ritual presentation provided in the endowment was a literal portrayal of the events that actually occurred in the Garden of Eden.

I explained that since I do not hold that assumption that I have never found the contradiction troubling. Rather than a literal portrayal of actual events, I view the endowment—and the story of Eden for that matter—as a ritual drama intended to covey important doctrine and principles concerning our spiritual journey into the presence of God.

Hence, according to my assumptions the contradiction that troubled the student was simply a symbolic portrayal that the student had misinterpreted.

Of course many other illustrations of paradigm shifts could be provided. I have had to employ a variety of such shifts when faced with new evidence that contradicted my assumptions. Rather than doubting the Church, however, I have always doubted the paradigms I have used to interpret Mormonism.

Speaking personally, I view paradigm shifts as a far superior course of action than abandoning one’s spiritual convictions.

Anyway, as one who used Kuhn in my master's thesis, I understand what you mean. I would imagine every member of the church must shift his or her paradigm in the wake of new information, whether that's a deeper understanding of gospel principles or some damning bit of historical data. I would say that your paradigm of the Book of Mormon has rightly shifted to allow for modern expansion and insertion.

You seem to be arguing that once one has had a spiritual witness of the truth of Mormonism, the paradigm must simply shift to accommodate information, regardless of what that information is. I think that's what I did for a very long time. For example, at 20 on my mission, I came to accept that the endowment was not literally a restoration of an ancient ritual. At 35 I shifted again to accept that the Book of Mormon was not a translation of an ancient record. I could accept these things as long as I remembered the spiritual witnesses I had received. I think what changed for me was the realization that maybe the spiritual witness wasn't really what I thought it was. I had expanded the paradigm to the breaking point, and when I finally allowed myself to wonder, "What if I'm wrong? What if this isn't really true?" that's when the pieces fell into place. For me, Mormonism makes complete sense as a hoax in a way it never did as a true restoration of the gospel.

Could I be wrong? Sure. My paradigm is still shifting, and who knows? Maybe I'll shift back to Mormonism. I doubt it, but you never know. :)

[_Dr. Shades]

I have had to employ a variety of such shifts when faced with new evidence that contradicted my assumptions.

So when the missionaries present new evidence that contradicts their Catholic investigators' assumptions, the Catholic investigator should merely employ a paradigm shift rather than join Mormonism?

Rather than doubting the Church, however, I have always doubted the paradigms I have used to interpret Mormonism.

What about the paradigm that the prophets teach? When that starts to be doubted, what's the point of the whole shebang?

Speaking personally, I view paradigm shifts as a far superior course of action than abandoning one’s spiritual convictions.

What would the missionaries say to an investigator who gave that as a reason for not committing to baptism?

[_charity]

I have had to employ a variety of such shifts when faced with new evidence that contradicted my assumptions.

So when the missionaries present new evidence that contradicts their Catholic investigators' assumptions, the Catholic investigator should merely employ a paradigm shift rather than join Mormonism?

Rather than doubting the Church, however, I have always doubted the paradigms I have used to interpret Mormonism.

What about the paradigm that the prophets teach? When that starts to be doubted, what's the point of the whole shebang?

Speaking personally, I view paradigm shifts as a far superior course of action than abandoning one’s spiritual convictions.

What would the missionaries say to an investigator who gave that as a reason for not committing to baptism?

The question always comes down to assimilation or accomodation. Do you change the old schema to fit the new information, or the change the new information to fit the old schema?

Myself, I think it is always a good idea to examine the old schema. And the Catholic investigaor should, too.

[_Runtu]

The question always comes down to assimilation or accomodation. Do you change the old schema to fit the new information, or the change the new information to fit the old schema?

Myself, I think it is always a good idea to examine the old schema. And the Catholic investigaor should, too.

And so should the doubting Mormon. Don't you think?

[_guy sajer]

I have had to employ a variety of such shifts when faced with new evidence that contradicted my assumptions.

So when the missionaries present new evidence that contradicts their Catholic investigators' assumptions, the Catholic investigator should merely employ a paradigm shift rather than join Mormonism?

Rather than doubting the Church, however, I have always doubted the paradigms I have used to interpret Mormonism.

What about the paradigm that the prophets teach? When that starts to be doubted, what's the point of the whole shebang?

Speaking personally, I view paradigm shifts as a far superior course of action than abandoning one’s spiritual convictions.

What would the missionaries say to an investigator who gave that as a reason for not committing to baptism?

The question always comes down to assimilation or accomodation. Do you change the old schema to fit the new information, or the change the new information to fit the old schema?

Myself, I think it is always a good idea to examine the old schema. And the Catholic investigaor should, too.

Perhaps this is true in certain cases; however, my observation is that society tends to progress when it reaches the point where abandoning the old schema, either in part or in whole, is the best course of action.

I'm reasonably certain, for example, that women in the West are grateful that society has largely abaondoned the old schemas (including religiously based ones) that greatly constrained their opportunities and rights.

Conservative, dogmatic religion is and has been, IMHO, one of the greatest historical barriers to social progress. Human society would be better off, I think, chucking the whole thing kit and kaboodle (that is, conservative, dogmatic religion).

Of course, this is all speaking in very general terms.

In specific cases, I tend to agree more. My parents, for example, are better off to maintain the paradigm, as it is one that makes them happy. I see no reason for them to change.

My brother, on the other hand, is miserable in the Mormon Church, much like I was years ago, trying to make it all fit but failing to do so. And he's tried, believe me. He'd be better off emotionally chucking the whole damned thing. Except, however, he'd probably find himself divorced, as his wife is a bit of a spiritual tyrant (she Lords her spiritual superiority over him and uses it to make him feel small and malleable to her will).

[_charity]

The question always comes down to assimilation or accomodation. Do you change the old schema to fit the new information, or the change the new information to fit the old schema?

Myself, I think it is always a good idea to examine the old schema. And the Catholic investigaor should, too.

And so should the doubting Mormon. Don't you think?

Yes. That is exactly what David said.

[_Runtu]

Yes. That is exactly what David said.

But David also said you should never abandon the original paradigm. Do you agree?

[_charity]

Yes. That is exactly what David said.

But David also said you should never abandon the original paradigm. Do you agree?

No. He said never abandon the spiritual wintess. That isn't a paradigm.

[_Runtu]

Yes. That is exactly what David said.

But David also said you should never abandon the original paradigm. Do you agree?

No. He said never abandon the spiritual wintess. That isn't a paradigm.

Of course it's a paradigm. The paradigm defines the meaning of the spiritual witness.

[_cksalmon]

It seems that what David is saying, fundamentally, is that his underlying paradigm will never change. Given his spiritual witness, it will always be the case that Book of Mormon is true, etc. When he speaks of "paradigm shift," he seems to mean a reimagining of secondary issues such that the primary paradigm is never allowed to be contradicted.

This is far from a thorough-going embracing of the possibilty of true "paradigm shift." This is paradigm maintenance.

This is clear when David suggests that "pardigm shift" is a much better option than denying one's spiritual witness.

Paradigm maintenance.

CKS