Why Does Mormon “Truth” Require Nuance, Caveats And Provisos?

[Craig Paxton]

Back when I was still trying to make the pieces of the Mormon puzzle fit together and try to make sense of it by forcing the round peg into the square hole…my believing friends, family and ward members would offer constructive but often conflicting nuanced advice on ways to pound the round peg into the square hole in an attempt to make Mormonism believable. While their sincere efforts worked for a while…eventually my bandaged, patched together testimony of nuanced, caveat and provisos reasoning didn’t stand up to the test of time and eventually fell apart.

Ironically, one of the very reasons for this loss of belief was the very fact that my brand of Mormonism (trying to acknowledge that not everyone experienced Mormonism the same way that I did) required so many patchwork-strung together-qualifying-stipulations to make it believable. And it was these very qualifying-nuanced-stipulations that made it implausible…at least to me.

So my question is…IF Mormonism is what it claims to be…why does it require so much nuancing and so many caveats and provisos to make it believable? Is this really what God intended?

[CV75]

my bandaged, patched together testimony of nuanced, caveat and provisos reasoning

From your description of your experieince, this is consitent with what happens when someone depends on others’ reasoning and creates what can only result in an ineffetual imitation of a testimony of the Spirit.

[thesometimesaint]

Because without those things humanity sounds like R2D2.

[KevinG]

We see through a glass but darkly.

If you expect a mortal grasp of the truth available to us to conform to your neat mental map you will be disappointed the rest of your life.

Edited July 26, 2012 by KevinG

[wenglund]

Back when I was still trying to make the pieces of the Mormon puzzle fit together and try to make sense of it by forcing the round peg into the square hole…my believing friends, family and ward members would offer constructive but often conflicting nuanced advice on ways to pound the round peg into the square hole in an attempt to make Mormonism believable. While their sincere efforts worked for a while…eventually my bandaged, patched together testimony of nuanced, caveat and provisos reasoning didn’t stand up to the test of time and eventually fell apart.

Ironically, one of the very reasons for this loss of belief was the very fact that my brand of Mormonism (trying to acknowledge that not everyone experienced Mormonism the same way that I did) required so many patchwork-strung together-qualifying-stipulations to make it believable. And it was these very qualifying-nuanced-stipulations that made it implausible…at least to me.

So my question is…IF Mormonism is what it claims to be…why does it require so much nuancing and so many caveats and provisos to make it believable? Is this really what God intended?

Nuances and caveats and provisos are unavoidably and a welcomed part of epistemic maturation in all aspects of our lives. It is a function of moving beyond the black/white absolutist thinking that is vital during the fundamentalist/pedagogical phase of our learning, and delving deeper in to basic concepts and being exposed to the wondrous complexities of conceptual shades of gray and a broad array of colors (metaphorically speaking). This is true of secular learning as well as religious.

What some may suppose to be the pounding of round pegs into square holes, is actually the typical transition processes from fundamentalism to maturation, pedagogy to androgogy. Call it a "teen" experience, where the pride of "know-it-all" begins to give way to the humility of "knowing very little."

Unfortunately, some people have a real challenge making this transition, and like many teens, they rebel and resist and close their minds, and even as adults stop developing indefinitely beyond this point, and may loose faith and digressively embrace with abandonment the myopic view of pounding square pegs into round holes.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Craig Paxton]

From your description of your experieince, this is consitent with what happens when someone depends on others’ reasoning and creates what can only result in an ineffetual imitation of a testimony of the Spirit.

Well...I once had what I believed was a rock solid testimony of Mormon Truth claims...once I began my quest to deepen that testimony through study...I came in contact with (things) that required nuance (band aids) and caveats (patches) in order to make my new deeper understanding of reality believable.

But it didn't last...as band aids and patches are not intended for long term solutions...the healing that eventually did take place and by that I mean losing the cognitive dissonance...only did so after I concluded that Mormonism wasn't what it claimed to be.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Well...I once had what I believed was a rock solid testimony of Mormon Truth claims...once I began my quest to deepen that testimony through study...I came in contact with (things) that required nuance (band aids) and caveats (patches) in order to make my new deeper understanding of reality believable.

But it didn't last...as band aids and patches are not intended for long term solutions...the healing that eventually did take place and by that I mean losing the cognitive dissonance...only did so after I concluded that Mormonism wasn't what it claimed to be.

Something that is nuanced is a band aid? That is truly bizarre.

[KevinG]

Well...I once had what I believed was a rock solid testimony of Mormon Truth claims..

Well there is your mistake. You should have been building a testimony of these things:

http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,106-1-2-1,FF.html

Without that foundation i can see why you would suffer from Cog Dis. But don't add projection to your ills by blaming it on the church.

[Ares]

Craig if you have specific issues and topics you feel need addressed that is fine. Stop putting these blanket accusations and hypothetical threads out there to troll for a reaction.