Thoughts On Church History And Faith Crisis Part 2

[DBMormon]

Over the past couple weeks, I have done a lot of thinking. Trying to wrap my mind around thoughts on both sides of the isle.... here is my perception.

1.) there are two distinct sides who seem unable to understand the other side or even give them one inkling of credit or validation for how they see things.

A.) faithful believer - seems to reply on this board in a way that seems to discredit the thought that they ever struggled with the list of issues that trouble the biggest majority of those in a faith crisis and also seem unable to grasp how another got there. (for the list of issues see part one for the list) For instance those who are having cognitive dissonance/ faith crisis seem to have very few on the faithful side who will even state they understand how one got there to this faith crisis. They don't see how one traveled down that fork in the yellow wood. When what some find something as a troubling issue, the faithful believer seems to easily swipe the issue off to the side attributing it to some way of explaining it in wht is rational to them and that set of lens they see this through is the way they approach helping those in faith crisis. There is a lot of room on the believer's part for leaders in the church to make mistakes on a constant basis, that in essence we should expect no more from them then good people in any other walk in life. Any contradictions can be summed people being people.

B.) the former member/abandoned testimony person is also extreme in the sense that they see the faithful believer as irrational in their explanations and as making excuses for every troubling point in LDS theology and in History. The former member seems to expect a church that is lead by prophets and apostles to hold to higher standard. That's it's actual history will match with the God led rendition they were taught early in their church learning. They are not prepared to discover that in some sense their is a sanitized history one learns in developing thier original "less mature" level of faith and another that forces them to a "higher maturity" of faith or to abandon the church's claims all together.

2.) While a lot of extreme dissagreement seems to occur from both extreme sides, is there a way to have a conversation in the middle? Where perhaps group 1 can better understand how Group 2 took the different road and where group 2 might better understand how group one rationalizes struggles and maintain faith?

Being kind of in the middle from my view (spiritually I have a strong testimony, Historically I really struggle at times) I would appreciate an attempt to handle this thread in a kinder nicer approach.....

1.) Why do the faithfull seem to discredit ever looking at the church truth in a Hisotrical manner. Not they they don't value history, just not as a mode of determining the possible validity of an event worth having faith in. In otherwords why can't faith ever be rooted at least in part in History. Ex: While one may have faith in Jesus or not, and though Historically we can never prove anything, it is a fact that Jesus was resurrected or he wasn't. While faith is a large part of it. That faith is based on a historical event. Is there value in trying to find out historically if things happened the way Jospeh Smith and others said, and if it becomes extremely obvious they are not factual or historical, is that reason to rethink one's testimony based on the historical opinion?

2.) Can the faithful share how when these issues (though perhaps not troubling to them) were encountered, how they approached each one.

- what you thought of it originally

- how you approached it

- what was of help

- what wasn't

-Whether you ever really get past it completely or just recognize that you can explain it enough to move on?

3.) For the former member - Why have you sought to give more presidence to your framework then the spiritual experiences you once had within the context of the church?

The issue at heart at least to me as I have reflected is the former member's inability to disregard the historical narrative in favor of faith. That in essence while they may have had spiritual experiences, those do not trump what seems to them as a historical narrative that places extreme doubt on the church's validity.

While the faithful seems to hold onto faith in the face of History that seems to bring into question the church's truth claims.

Each side will develop good explanations to them why their approach is best in mending this dissonance and find their approach to be the most rational and real. Who is to argue over of the personal spiritual experiences of another and if real they do in reality trump questionable views on History. Then again regardless of how many spiritual experiences one has in Jim Jones or Heanven's Gate, it doesn't make them true.... quite a quandry

Thank You

Edited April 25, 2012 by reelmormon

[wenglund]

As one of the "faithful," I can honestly say that I understand very well that certain aspects of Church history can and have caused members to experience crisis of faith. I also believe I understand pretty much why they may experience such crisis.

Where I may differ with you and other faithful and unfaithful members or former members, among other things, is in terms of who, how, where and when best to address the crisis of faith. I was in the process of trying to demonstrate part of my point of view when I was banned from the previous thread.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 25, 2012 by wenglund

[DBMormon]

Why were you banned? whatever it was do not do that and share some thoughts here. Also I am still pondering your assignment and will get back to you when I have some time to sit down with it

[wenglund]

Not to put too fine a point on things, but I have been actively involved in LDS apologetics for about four decades and participant in various apologetic communities and organization nearly since their inceptions.

So, I am in a fairly good position to say that LDS apologetics was given rise and blossomed in the last several decades because of concerns by believers for the impediments to faith of Church members and investigators. We apologist have become acutely aware of the kinds of things that can and have negatively impacted people's faith, and we have been doing our best to counteract them. In short, I know somewhat of what I speak.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Why were you banned? whatever it was do not do that and share some thoughts here. Also I am still pondering your assignment and will get back to you when I have some time to sit down with it.

As usual, I was not told, nor was it clear to me why I was banned. I just accept that the mods have had their reasons, and since they are in charge of the board, they can do as they see fit whether I agree or like it or not.

I look forward to seeing the results of your assignment.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[DBMormon]

So with the context of what you have stated along with my open to this thread, how do we help me and others see that serious questions with church history and problems and mistakes of those in positions of authority within the church can understood under a different framework. How does an faithful member deal with these issues when they first become aware of them early in their time in the church? I think it is important to go back to when they first dealt with this then to address it from where they are now. So that they can see the fork in the road and see how they got to where they are.

Edited April 25, 2012 by reelmormon

[Kevin Christensen]

Since my approaches didn't seem to help you, there is this, which actually fits nicely with Ben's insights. The questions that she refers to during her talk are included at the end.

http://www.fairlds.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2007-Wendy-Ulrich.pdf

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Calm]

there are two distinct sides who seem unable to understand the other side or even give them one inkling of credit or validation for how they see things.

Just to be clear, are you saying that while there is a spectrum of perspectives on this issue, one can group some into two distinct "sides" or are you saying that all involved in the discussion or even the majority of those involved in the discussion (since you state you are in the middle yourself) can be placed in one of two groups?

[DBMormon]

Since my approaches didn't seem to help you

Oh, honestly, you, Englund, Log and many others did help me a lot. To better understand there are multiple ways to see the same info. This thread isn't about that. This thread is about better understanding how we get to the point of view to begin with and how others addressed this when encountered the first time so that we all might be better able to swim in these waters. I really hope you see it that way. This is not about fixing ones views on the issues but better helpin one see how they got to that conclusion and perhaps help some before they get too far down a path they don't want to be on

Anyway from a true sincere point of view.... thank you

[DBMormon]

I am saying that it seems like on the previous thread most people fell into one of the sides based on the way they replied and addressed the issue

[wenglund]

So with the context of what you have stated along with my open to this thread, how do we help me and others see that serious questions with church history and problems and mistakes of those in positions of authority within the church can understood under a different framework. How does an faithful member deal with these issues when they first become aware of them early in their time in the church? I think it is important to go back to when they first dealt with this then to address it from where they are now. So that they can see the fork in the road and see how they got to where they are.

The first challenge I see with what you just proposed is that there is an enormous range of reasons why people experience a crisis or test of their faith. What may be troubling for one member, may be inconsequential to another, and vice versa. Some may have a problem with one aspect of Church history, while someone else may have a problem with another aspect of Church history, while yet others may have problems that have nothing to do with Church history or assumed mistakes of Church leaders, etc. etc. It just isn't feasible to list them all, let alone look at the supposed genesis for each--though I suppose it can be made somewhat manageable by picking a few examples.

Second, I have found that rather than looking backwards at the start of individual challenges, it works best to look forward to where one may wish to go in relation to the challenges and map out a viable strategy for getting there. Metaphorically speaking, a lot of time can be wasted debating when and how exactly a tire became flat, instead of finding and fixing the leak and moving forward.

That having been said, I am happy to go along with whatever you decide.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Calm]

I am saying that it seems like on the previous thread most people fell into one of the sides based on the way they replied and addressed the issue

I think one needs to be careful in assuming that because a discussion may frame the terminology and stuff in a limiting/simplifying and/or polarizing way that such accurately reflects the entire span of someone's thoughts on a topic. In my experience, depending on how one sets the conversation up one can end up with a wide variation/range of ideas or as a perceived dichotomy on this issue.

Edited April 25, 2012 by calmoriah

[Benjamin McGuire]

I can, of course, only really bring up the perspective that I come to the table with - that is, what would my desires and expecations be. So, let's start from the top:

there are two distinct sides who seem unable to understand the other side or even give them one inkling of credit or validation for how they see things.

I thought I gave a pretty good summary of my perspective. Part of it has to do with the sort of core of your post. You start by dividing people into two groups. That seems to be such a fundamentalist sort of understanding of what is going on - but it doesn't really work well. Anyone can divide any group into two groups (for example, I can divide all of humanity into two groups - those who divide humanity into two groups, and those who don't). In creating this false dichotomy, we have already started off on the wrong foot. Let's move on:

faithful believer - seems to reply on this board in a way that seems to discredit the thought that they ever struggled with the list of issues that trouble the biggest majority of those in a faith crisis and also seem unable to grasp how another got there.

So lets take this apart just a bit. The truth is, from everyone I have spoken with and communicated with during my time in the church, "the biggest majority of those in a faith crisis" aren't in that faith crisis over historical issues. I see this idea - this notion - that these historical issues are the biggest threat to the faith of the saints as part of a narrative that has been produced and mass distributed on the internet. But in fact, every bit of anecdotal evidence that I have suggests that this simply isn't the case. All that you can provide to argue that it is is a very poorly done study by John Dehlin, which creates this notion by manipulating data. So, I suggested that for those who come to this crisis of faith it is a crisis caused by at least in part by accepting this narrative that historical issues are a concern for a lot of people and that it ought to be a concern for a lot of people. This doesn't mean that some don't have these concerns with historical issues - but it does mean that it isn't as significant as you make it out to be - and that part of this idea that it is significant is part of the narrative itself.

For instance those who are having cognitive dissonance/ faith crisis seem to have very few on the faithful side who will even state they understand how one got there to this faith crisis.

Perhaps you would be willing to define cognitive dissonance for me. I have at least a passing familiarity with it, having read Festinger's work more than once. It seems to me that part of the entire notion of John Dehlin's study is itself a result of cognitive dissonance - as are the claims of the sort that you raise - i.e. that this kind of crisis of faith is typical of most Mormons who have a crisis of faith. Actually, most of those who use this term (cognitive dissonance) with respect to Mormons and their faith do so in a way that doesn't really conform to the theory of cognitive dissonance. Its use in these discussions is often a big red flag pointing back (again) to the idea that those in this particular boat have bought into someone's narrative that is not really their own. But, you are welcome to convince me that I am wrong. What do you know of cognitive dissonance?

2.) While a lot of extreme dissagreement seems to occur from both extreme sides, is there a way to have a conversation in the middle? Where perhaps group 1 can better understand how Group 2 took the different road and where group 2 might better understand how group one rationalizes struggles and maintain faith?

The first thing that has to happen is that the narrative has to go away. We can have this discussion without the appeal to cognitive dissonance, without the a constant reference to a laundry list of issues. We can have reasonable discourse about why we think one thing instead of something else. We need to have discussion over issues of ambiguity and faith. We could of course talk about a detailed historical event - by my experience is that any discussion on this level does little good, since there isn't enough impetus in such a discussion to move beyond to a rejection of the entire narrative - there is no paradigm shift in narrow discourse.

Why do the faithfull seem to discredit ever looking at the church truth in a Hisotrical manner. Not they they don't value history, just not as a mode of determining the possible validity of an event worth having faith in.

My answer is that it is because it simply doesn't work this way. Let me enumerate a couple of points.

First, history isn't an object. Let me quote just a bit from Douglas Cowan's book Remnant Spirit:

... history is not an objective circumstance that can be abstracted and made to command fealty for purposes of ideological advancement. There is no one authoritative version of history that can indisputably separate the authentic from the inauthentic. Rather, in terms of its contribution to the social construction of reality, history is an intricate, often murky and inconsistent complex of situations and forces, attitudes and choices, memories and anti-memories, all of which serve the interpretive agendas of those who deploy history as something demanding allegiance.

So let me explain in terms of this discussion. History is something that has to be interpreted. We don't value "history" per se. We may value an interpretation of historical events that we can call history - but it usually remains as an interpretation. And, in any particular event, we can always place an interpretation on the history that is either more or less friendly to claims being made about that history. So, for example, we could talk about the ******* child of a woman who was engaged to be married to man, who admittedly was not the father of her child - as a way of speaking about Jesus (and in fact, there were those who discussed this in this way). We can talk about historical events - but in the end, there has to be some sort of narrative that provides the connective tissue. And I saw this in our previous discussion over seer stones. There isn't much room for mutual discussion if we use these narratives as the starting point of the discussion. Because the narrative isn't history, it is an interpretive agenda.

Second, there is a reason why every contemporary discussion on comparative religion or on the history of religion works very hard at separating these two issues. The moment we confuse them is the moment that faith based discourse goes out the window. Everett Ferguson tries to explain this in the introduction to his recent book Backgrounds of Early Christianity:

Christian claims rest on whether it is a revelation from God, not on its originality, and this is a claim not directly verifiable by historic examination. The decision for or against Christianity is a matter of faith, however much historical inquiry might support or discourage the decision.

Likewise, Jonathon Smith (that I quoted in the other thread) mentioned this idea. In drawing this out - the way you do - you substitute this idea of history (and not just history as some kind of object - but rather the interpretive agenda that comes with the narrative you present) for the idea of ontological truth and faith. The challenge I have here is that since we can manipulate historical claims any way we really want to, we end up with a situation in which potentially belief becomes increasingly impossible. The other half of this coin is that presenting a different interpretive agenda of history doesn't actually help us separate this notion of ontological truth and faith from these historical accounts with their interpretive agendas. This is the reason why I reject the notion you present. I find it to be a method of sorts that doesn't work. For me, the acceptance of this idea that it should work (even though it doesn't) is a part of that narrative that this group of individuals has encountered and bought into. And it is in part why that narrative argues for this approach so forcefully (because it already knows the outcome - even if it doesn't recognize that it is error driven from the beginning).

In otherwords why can't faith ever be rooted at least in part in History. Ex: While one may have faith in Jesus or not, and though Historically we can never prove anything, it is a fact that Jesus was resurrected or he wasn't.

The oddity of this kind of suggestion is that it stands in a rather stark contrast to everything else you have written. Either Joseph Smith produced a translation of an ancient record or he didn't. The question of whether or not there were seer stones or a Urim and Thummim won't affect that historical reality right? And yet, there is this insistence that somehow the question of seer stone versus Urim and Thummim is somehow not only significant but able to help us determine whether or not a translation was really made. Have I missed something here?

Is there value in trying to find out historically if things happened the way Jospeh Smith and others said, and if it becomes extremely obvious they are not factual or historical, is that reason to rethink one's testimony based on the historical opinion?

Again, the issue is that we aren't dealing with facts in any discussion of these issues - we are dealing with agenda driven interpretations. If we can somehow get away from those agenda driven interpretations, then perhaps. But, when you come armed with these interpretations (and not just with facts and discrepancies), you will always run into this problem. History in its interpretation is quite malleable.

Ben M.

[DBMormon]

The first challenge I see with what you just proposed is that there is an enormous range of reasons why people experience a crisis or test of their faith. What may be troubling for one member, may be inconsequential to another, and vice versa. Some may have a problem with one aspect of Church history, while someone else may have a problem with another aspect of Church history, while yet others may have problems that have nothing to do with Church history or assumed mistakes of Church leaders, etc. etc. It just isn't feasible to list them all, let alone look at the supposed genesis for each--though I suppose it can be made somewhat manageable by picking a few examples.

Let's just deal with those who come accross the top ten troubling issues mentioned in the previous thread and go back to the beginning of when some of you found these things for the first time and ho you handled it and then how you over time built a rational that dealt with these items in a way that they. You don't need to explain your dealings with each one. Only the first time or so that you encountered these issues and how you handled it.

The issues mean nothing here.... it is about how you dealt with them. I don't want this to be about the issues at all. I want this thread to address the methodolgy we use as followers and non believers in dealing with them.

Second, I have found that rather than looking backwards at the start of individual challenges, it works best to look forward to where one may wish to go in relation to the challenges and map out a viable strategy for getting there. Metaphorically speaking, a lot of time can be wasted debating when and how exactly a tire became flat, instead of finding and fixing the leak and moving forward.

But this is my thread... lol and unless one wishes not to bring up past times of personal doubt (and those who feel that way can abstain from replying) I wish to address from where the two sides seem to first diverge in their journeys through the LDS model

[DBMormon]

I think one needs to be careful in assuming that because a discussion may frame the terminology and stuff in a limiting/simplifying and/or polarizing way that such accurately reflects the entire span of someone's thoughts on a topic. In my experience, depending on how one sets the conversation up one can end up with a wide variation/range of ideas or as a perceived dichotomy on this issue.

If one wants they can ignore the different problems each of those who struggle has in dealing with the church in general. Move on from that and simply addess irregardless of what specific struggle but rather your methodology in handling it. I would love the individual perspectives of both sides

[DBMormon]

The truth is, from everyone I have spoken with and communicated with during my time in the church, "the biggest majority of those in a faith crisis" aren't in that faith crisis over historical issues

What do you see as the major ingredient in Faith Crisis? Also again I also do not think that faith crisis is because of historical issues either, I think it is our perception of the LDS story and the feeling of betrayal when that story in one's head and what they have come to know doesn't match up with a personal journey and search for truth (historical, theological, spiritual) The issues simply act as the stage where this feeling of betrayal take place.\

but enough of that... we hit that hard enough in the first thread so again let's not focus on the issues themselves only as a way of leading into your methodology within the LDS mind and how one handles problematic issues

Edited April 25, 2012 by reelmormon

[DBMormon]

Kevin - I listened to the WendyUlrich presentaion some time ago

In fact that is about the time I first of Cognitive dissonance

Ben - Cognitive Dissonnance - when your mind sees a conflict to an established way of behavior, belief, or understanding that you use and see as acceptable, and your mind has to find a new way to handle now that a conflicting piece of information has been added. - My definition... not sure how accurate

[Calm]

The vast majority of individuals that I have personally known who have had a faith crisis have had one based on feeling abandoned by the Lord because they don't believe a prayer has been answered or they or a loved one has been struck by what they see as a disaster (usually medical).

[wenglund]

Let's just deal with those who come across the top ten troubling issues mentioned in the previous thread and go back to the beginning of when some of you found these things for the first time and how you handled it and then how you over time built a rationale that dealt with these items in a way that they. You don't need to explain your dealings with each one. Only the first time or so that you encountered these issues and how you handled it.

Okay, the first item on Dehlin's list is the Book of Abraham. Before I can respond, I need you to identify at least one specific historical issue with the Book of Abraham that is supposedly troubling?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Kevin Christensen]

Kevin - I listened to the WendyUlrich presentaion some time ago

In fact that is about the time I first of Cognitive dissonance

Ben - Cognitive Dissonnance - when your mind sees a conflict to an established way of behavior, belief, or understanding that you use and see as acceptable, and your mind has to find a new way to handle now that a conflicting piece of information has been added. - My definition... not sure how accurate

The term has become a favorite of the Post Mormon Crowd, championed initially by Ed Ashment way back when. The implicit narrative attached to the term also appears in the use of the "blue pill" metaphor, borrowed with all the rhetorical implications and valuations from The Matrix. Cognitive dissonance, when improperly understood, when approached as a way of accounting for other people, rather than for self-reflection, is something that happens to other people.

I personally find Kuhn, Barbour, and the Perry Scheme provide more useful approaches understanding different interpretations of the same information. But that's just me.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Log]

I just read the wikipedia entry on CogDis; is it accurate enough?

Cognitive dissonance is a discomfort caused by holding conflicting cognitions (e.g., ideas, beliefs, values, emotional reactions) simultaneously. In a state of dissonance, people may feel surprise, dread, guilt, anger, or embarrassment.

It seems simple.

Edited April 26, 2012 by Log

[CV75]

I realized that moments of doubt, despite faithfully practicing my religion, were tests. I can't say these moments of doubt were brought about by processing outside information. They were strictly an internal dynamic for whatever reason the Lord sought to test me by withdrawing His Spirit from me for those moments. As I remembered the power of faith and the results of past experience with faith, new enlightenment on the subject at hand quickly dispelled the doubt.

So regardless of what we process rationally, or what we experience when the Spirit withdraws, faith still has power (we can still have it and exercise a particle of it even wthout the power or companionship of the Holy Ghost). Rationality is only one of many mortal attributes we need to learn to harness for the future.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Cognitive dissonance is a discomfort caused by holding conflicting cognitions (e.g., ideas, beliefs, values, emotional reactions) simultaneously. In a state of dissonance, people may feel surprise, dread, guilt, anger, or embarrassment.

The wikipedia continues (and this is also important):

The theory of cognitive dissonance in social psychology proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by altering existing cognitions, adding new ones to create a consistent belief system, or alternatively by reducing the importance of any one of the dissonant elements.

Ok. So what does this mean? The theory of cognitive dissonance suggests that this discomfort forces us to change. Festinger, in his introduction (A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance) explains it this way:

Since there will be a more formal discussion of this point later on in this chapter, let us now examine how dissonance may be reduced using as an illustration the example of the habitual smoker who has learned that smoking is bad for his health. He may have acquired this information from a newspaper or magazine, from friends, or even from some physician. This knowledge is certainly dissonant with cognition that he continues to smoke. If the hypothesis is correct, what would the person involved be expected to do?

I. He might simply change his cognition about his behavior by changing his actions; that is, he might stop smoking. If he no longer smokes, then his cognition of what he does will be consonant with the knowledge that smoking is bad for his health.

2. He might change his "knowledge" about the effects of smoking. This sounds like a peculiar way to put it, but it expresses well what must happen. He might simply end up believing that smoking does not have any deleterious effects, or he might acquire so much "knowledge" pointing to the good effects it has that the harmful aspects become negligible. If he can manage to change his knowledge in either of these ways, he will have reduced, or even eliminated, the dissonance between what he does and what he knows.

But in the above illustration it seems clear that the person may encounter difficulties in trying to change either his behavior or his knowledge. And this, of course, is precisely the reason that dissonance, once created, may persist. There is no guarantee that the person will be able to reduce or remove the dissonance. The hypothetical smoker may find that the process of giving up smoking is too painful for him to endure. He might try to find facts and opinions of others to support the view that smoking is not harmful, but these attempts might fail. He might then remain in the situation where he continues to smoke and continues to know that smoking is harmful. If this turns out to be the case, however, his efforts to reduce the dissonance will not cease.

Indeed, there are some areas of cognition where the existence of major dissonance is customary. This may occur when two or more established beliefs or values, all relevant to the area of cognition in question, are inconsistent. That is, no opinion can be held, and no behavior engaged in, that will not be dissonant with at least one of these established beliefs.(pp. 5-7)

One particularly important aspect of this is mentioned just a few pages later:

Indeed, one of the important consequences of the theory of dissonance is that it will help us understand some circumstances where the cognitive elements do not correspond with reality. But it does mean that if the cognitive elements do not correspond with a certain reality which impinges, certain pressures must exist. We should therefore be able to observe some manifestations of these pressures. This hypothesized relation between the cognitive elements and reality is important in enabling measurement of dissonance, and we will refer to it again in considering data. (p. 11)

In other words (and this is the simple version), cognitive dissonance requires change. If no change occurs (either in beliefs or in actions) then we can comfortably assume (most of the time) that no cognitive dissonance was experienced. If change occurs, then we can suggest that perhaps cognitive dissonance occurred and was resolved (by the change). According to Festinger, we naturally move to resolve cognitive dissonance as quickly as possible, and we remain in a cognitive dissonant state, it is usually because there is no apparent way to change so that the dissonant state is resolved. In his example, this could potentially be a smoker who is addicted to nicotine while knowing that smoking is killing him, he simply cannot quit. We might see this in a soldier who was drafted to go to war, but finds war (in any form) or even violence for that matter utterly repulsive. And yet there he is, being forced to engage in both.

Generally speaking, we don't speak about cognitive dissonance itself, but rather about the changes that are the evidence that cognitive dissonance may have been experienced. Part of this is because competing cognitions don't automatically cause dissonance. One of Festinger's observations was that some people have a very high tolerance for dissonance in their beliefs and actions. Just experiencing dissonance does not create the "discomfort" that is used to decribe cognitive dissonance.

And this brings us back to this thread. You suggested that:

Cognitive Dissonnance - when your mind sees a conflict to an established way of behavior, belief, or understanding that you use and see as acceptable, and your mind has to find a new way to handle now that a conflicting piece of information has been added. - My definition... not sure how accurate

And now we get to this more basic problem. Finding out about seer stones as opposed to a Urim and Thummim doesn't, by itself, seem to serve as much of a basis for cognitive dissonance. In fact, since no actions or behaviors are generally determined by this distinction, we can guess that this kind of cognitive dissonance is very, very easy to deal with. This is probably true of most historical issues and discrepancies. So we can start with the assumption that historical differences are not the cause of cognitive dissonance. When we talk about faith, we could see two generally larger categories of cognitive dissonance. On the one side, we might have people who believe in the gospel, and who aren't living it. They may be having an affair, they may be engaged in unethical business practices, they may be smokers with an addiction. This could certainly cause some kind of cognitive dissonance (that may persist for a variety of reasons). We may have some who no longer believe in the gospel and for a variety of reasons continue to pay tithing and attend church (again for a variety of reasons). Sometimes these may result in behavioral changes so that the dissonance goes away (either more fully engaging in the gospel or leaving the church). When we get into these discussions, the challenge becomes much more complex than it seems on the surface. I have some other thoughts, but let me start a new post for them.

[Log]

And now we get to this more basic problem. Finding out about seer stones as opposed to a Urim and Thummim doesn't, by itself, seem to serve as much of a basis for cognitive dissonance. In fact, since no actions or behaviors are generally determined by this distinction, we can guess that this kind of cognitive dissonance is very, very easy to deal with. This is probably true of most historical issues and discrepancies. So we can start with the assumption that historical differences are not the cause of cognitive dissonance.

Ben, if I may interject, you're not grasping Reelmormon's problem as I perceive it.

RM's issue, as he said in the other thread, was that his spiritual witness - the manifestation of the Spirit to him - was that what he was being taught about the Church was true: all of it. And yet he found out subsequently that the Church's version of history is, to his appreciation, vastly oversimplified.

That is, the Church presents its history one way, when, in fact, the actual history is quite a bit more complex, nuanced, and perhaps even less-than-obviously faith-promoting. When one expects (and, to be blunt, has good reasons to expect) perfect, complete truth from the Church, and perceives that there is less than perfect, complete truth coming from it, that's a problem.

Hence, something like the seer-stone vs. Urim and Thummim is a perfectly adequate object of cognitive dissonance, as are any perceived discrepancies between what the Church teaches as its history, and what the documents actually say.

Edited April 26, 2012 by Log

[Benjamin McGuire]

So, the challenge occur that can cause the crisis of faith (and, for the record, I believe that crisis of faith are a nearly universal sort of thing - although they don't always revolve around the same set of issues). Crisis occurs in faith when we change how we know things.

In this case, when we deal with historical issues as a faith crisis, the trigger isn't so much the conflict as the fact that the conflict occurs as we engage in a new way of knowing about the church. This aspect is where we might say that the institutional church has added to the problem more than it has reduced it. The church does this by engaging in its history only in a superficial way and as a cover so to speak, for teaching doctrine and theology. The church leads us to believe that it is also trying to teach us history - even though, very often, is something that is more cultural myth than history. When members discover history as history (or what they perceive as history) they enter a new way of knowing about the church, and this leads to conflict that creates crisis. In terms of the earlier comments, its not that we get new information or new knowledge, art of the challenge is that its new information and new knowledge in an entirely different kind of framework - and a knowledge that doesn't necessarily challenge old knowledge so much as it challenges the framework. It's not the realization that maybe when we speak of the Urim and Thummim we might really be meaning a seer stone so much as the realization that what the church passed off on us as history is clearly not history in any academic sense. These issues are particularly prevalent when we deal with strongly held views that we might call "normative" (especially when those views are inaccurate).

What can be done?

I don't think we need to open up our lessons to the most difficult, or most critical issues. I think that in every situation these will be different from person to person. Given that each member is at a different place, wholesale exposing people to the areas of most concern probably is not completely beneficial. I also do not think that the church would serve its members best by focusing a lot on history. I do think that the church needs to recognize that limiting resources to just that which comes through correlation is itself part of the problem and that the risks of trying to create such tight control inevitably add to this issue. If I had to make three suggestion to the curriculum committee of the church, it would be these:

1: Teachers (and curriculum material) should be encouraged to avoid reinforcing dogmatic perspective. They could be religious, they could be political, they could be hyper nationalistic. How many times was I given a comment that involved some rather dogmatic (and probably incorrect) statement? Teachers need to allow some liberty among their class members for a wide range of beliefs - and whether or not something is a widely held normative point of view, if we don't reinforce that as a perception among the members of the church, or if we downplay what is perceived as normative (and dogmatic) differing opinions will not be so likely to cause a crisis of faith.

2: Lessons need to involve some kind of critical thinking for both teachers and students. Providing everything bundled up neatly with a quote from a General Authority to boot is to some extent destructive of the kind of education that we need to provide. One of the most ironic lessons for this year (in my opinion) is lesson 3. There we discuss Nephi's vision of the Tree of Life. The contrast Nephi wants to draw is between his own approach (go to God for understanding and personal revelation) and the approach of his brothers (let's ask Nephi - who because of his experience can be seen as authoritative in explaining it). This is followed up by a discussion of the symbolism in the dream from ... Elder Jeffrey Holland. And the lesson we are being taught is that being Nephi is not as good as being Laman and Lemuel. Less may well be more. Reading quotes does not engage the critical thinking skills of class members.

3: If we are worried about exposure to history, then perhaps we need to make clear demarcations in our curriculum material. Take some time to talk about history and make it real history without the need for ethical judgments or the (often unstated) moral conclusions. Then take some time to talk about theology and doctrine. If we want to emphasize both, then we need to include both - and not to confuse them in our curriculum. It should come as no surprise when we see a person experience a crisis of faith in which they are confusing historical elements as representing some kind of gospel truth - because our lessons do just this. We teach gospel truth through (often misrepresented) historical discussions. If we want to use experiences as examples, then lets use our own experiences - something that we don't get through many layers of interpretation and often normative and dogmatic belief.

Ben M.