On Testimony, Confirmation Bias, and Belief

[Dr. Sunstoned]

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.

[malkie]

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.

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".

Many years ago, while a graduate student in California, I heard the late Stanley B. Kimball (a Latter-day Saint scholar who taught at Southern Illinois University and published extensively on both European and Latter-day Saint historical subjects) speak to a small group about what he termed “the three levels of Mormon history.”

He called the first of these “level A.” This level, he said, is the Junior Sunday School version of church history, in which Mormons always wear the white hats, nobody disagrees, no leader ever makes a mistake, and all is unambiguously clear.

“Level B,” he said, is the anti-Mormon version of church history—essentially a mirror image of level A or, alternatively, level A turned on its head. On level B, everything that you thought was good and true is actually false and bad. The Mormons (or, at least, their leaders) always or almost always wear black hats, and, to the extent that everything is unambiguously clear, Mormonism is unambiguously fraudulent, bogus, deceptive, and evil. Much in the level B version of Mormonism is simply false, of course; critics of the church have often failed to distinguish themselves for their honesty or for the care with which they’ve treated the issues they raise. But, in more than a few instances, level B approaches to Mormonism and its past are based on problems that are more or less real.

The church, Kimball reflected, tends to teach level A history. The trouble with this is that, like someone who has been kept in a germfree environment and is then exposed to an infectious disease, a person on level A who is exposed to any of the issues that are the fodder for level B will have little resistance and will be likely to fall. The only hope in such a case, he continued, is to press on to what he termed “level C,” which is a version of church history that remains affirmative but which also takes into account any and all legitimate points stressed by level B. Those on level C are largely impervious to infection from level B. Level B formulations simply don’t impress them. (Davis Bitton was a signal example of this. He knew far more about the Latter-day Saint past than the Internet critics who so glibly assert that Mormon testimonies cannot survive exposure to accurate Mormon history, yet he remained exuberantly faithful to the end.)

Kimball said that he and his fellow historians operate on level C, and that, on the whole, that’s where he (as a professional historian) would prefer members to be. He was deeply convinced, he said, that level C was essentially like level A, except that it is more nuanced and somewhat more ambiguous. (He emphatically denied that level A is “false,” or that the church “lies” in teaching it.) He acknowledged, though, that, were he himself a high-ranking church leader, he would be hesitant to take the membership as a whole to level C by means of church curriculum and instruction for the obvious reason that moving people from level A to level C entails at least some exposure to some of the elements of level B and that such exposure will unavoidably lead some to lose their testimonies. Still, he felt that those who make it through to level C are more stable and resilient in their faith than those who remain on level A.

I'll leave this here without comment.

Edit: fixed a few bad line breaks.

[Limnor]

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.

What’s frustrating to me is the borrowing of that term from Paul and then using it incorrectly, at least as I see it.

But yes I can see also where it could be frustrating if its use was simply to shut down inquiry.

[Limnor]

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".

Many years ago, while a graduate student in California, I heard the late Stanley B. Kimball (a Latter-day Saint scholar who taught at Southern Illinois University and published extensively on both European and Latter-day Saint historical subjects) speak to a small group about what he termed “the three levels of Mormon history.”

He called the first of these “level A.” This level, he said, is the Junior Sunday School version of church history, in which Mormons always wear the white hats, nobody disagrees, no leader ever makes a mistake, and all is unambiguously clear.

“Level B,” he said, is the anti-Mormon version of church history—essentially a mirror image of level A or, alternatively, level A turned on its head. On level B, everything that you thought was good and true is actually false and bad. The Mormons (or, at least, their leaders) always or almost always wear black hats, and, to the extent that everything is unambiguously clear, Mormonism is unambiguously fraudulent, bogus, deceptive, and evil. Much in the level B version of Mormonism is simply false, of course; critics of the church have often failed to distinguish themselves for their honesty or for the care with which they’ve treated the issues they raise. But, in more than a few instances, level B approaches to Mormonism and its past are based on
problems that are more or less real.

The church, Kimball reflected, tends to teach level A history. The trouble with this is that, like someone who has been kept in a germfree environment and is then exposed to an infectious disease, a person on level A who is exposed to any of the issues that are the fodder for level B will have little resistance and will be likely to fall. The only hope in such a case, he continued, is to press on to what he termed “level C,” which is a version of church history that remains affirmative but which also takes into account any and all legitimate points stressed by level B. Those on level C are largely impervious to infection from level B. Level B formulations simply don’t impress them. (Davis Bitton was a signal example of this. He knew far more
about the Latter-day Saint past than the Internet critics who so glibly assert that Mormon testimonies cannot survive exposure to accurate
Mormon history, yet he remained exuberantly faithful to the end.)

Kimball said that he and his fellow historians operate on level C, and that, on the whole, that’s where he (as a professional historian) would prefer members to be. He was deeply convinced, he said, that level C was essentially like level A, except that it is more nuanced and somewhat more ambiguous. (He emphatically denied that level A is “false,” or that the church “lies” in teaching it.) He acknowledged, though, that, were he himself a high-ranking church leader, he would be hesitant to take the membership as a whole to level C by means of church curriculum and instruction for the obvious reason that moving people from level A to level C entails at least some exposure to some of the elements of level B and that such exposure will unavoidably lead some to lose their testimonies. Still, he felt that those who make it through to level C are more stable and resilient in their faith than those who remain on level A.

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.

Also critics are the worst.

[malkie]

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.

Also critics are the worst.

We can't be the absolute worst, can we? Are we not an essential part of the plan of salvation and exaltation? And is retention really the goal?

Supposedly (according to LDS ideas) we are here on earth, with physical bodies, to learn what we need to know and how we need to act in order to become gods. We are to learn to be similar to (can't be "the same as" - or can we) Elohim, Jesus' father. We are supposed to go through earthly experiences that will test us to our limits, so that we are worthy to inherit all that the father has and is.

The largest effect that the Book of Abraham has had on Latter-day Saint thought is its concept of the premortal existence and the purpose of life. Although other Latter-day Saint scriptures discuss the premortal existence, the Book of Abraham provides the clearest explanation of this key Latter-day Saint doctrine. The Book of Abraham explains that God organized all the spirits of this world “before this world was” (Abraham 3:22), explains its purpose (see Abraham 3:24), and states that this earthly existence was to “prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them” (Abraham 3:25). The Book of Abraham thus provides Latter-day Saints with their most succinct statement on the purpose of mortal existence.

The Role of the Book of Abraham in Latter-day Saint Scripture

I have to wonder why, then, it seems that the church is happier to intentionally keep most members at level A. Should they not be pushing us to level C?

Satan was cast down after the battle in heaven because his plan was to bring all of god's children back to god without subjecting them to trials and temptations, whereas Jesus' plan was to allow us to experience the bad so that we could choose the good, all the while knowing that some of us would be lost along the way.

Which level, A or C, sounds more like Satan's plan, and which more like Jesus' plan?

On the other hand, while bringing members to level C involves the risk of some losing their testimonies through exposure to level B material, not doing so involves the risk of losing them to a combination of boredom, burnout, and despair.

[Limnor]

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.

[MG 2.0]

Thank you both. My intent is to treat it as you mention, Gad, as if it were their home and I will respect that. Also I laughed at the ring or tie tack.

I have a beard—would that expose me?

No, not at all.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Obviously I think you should go. Maybe find a chapel a few minutes out so it's not your neighbors and slip into a back row just for F&T meeting. If anyone asks, just imply you're a member and there for work that week. I don't think you need to worry about being harassed by the members, as Mormons are extremely cliquish and most hate doing missionary work and feel like visitors are invading their home.

I don't think that is necessarily true as a matter of fact in many if not most situations.. Truthfully, I think most members are hesitant about being overbearing and putting themselves into someone else's 'personal space' unless it is with their direct invitation/permission.

As far as "cliquish", that might be another way of saying members of a ward have friends and they tend to grouping themselves together when they have the opportunity to do so. Life is busy, and sometimes the only time in a given week they have to see their friends is at church. Gadianton, I think you are painting the wrong picture for Limnor.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Fast and Testimony meeting, when I was a member, was largely for 2 things: therapy and virtue signalling. Both with the obligatory crying from the person bearing said "testimony."

Neither were very comfortable or fun to watch. But your mileage will vary greatly by the people in the ward.

Generally speaking in the wards I've been in the members, on the whole, stand up to give their witness/testimony of Christ and the gospel. Also, their beliefs concerning the truthfulness of the church and the fact that they are grateful to be members. Sometimes there will be tears. More often than not, however, no tears. Emotion? Yeah, that's pretty common.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

I haven't been in forever, just guessing given all the alt-right Dez-nat nuts that there are a lot more beards than there used to be.

Beards? Yes. Dez-nats? No.

Regular guys.

Regards,
MG