Knowledge, Expectations, and Reactions to Difficult Questions

"Consecrate Your Brain," part 2
Continuing series with Greg Smith.
See also the Introduction, and parts 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7.  

LifeOnGoldPlates: Some members of the church have described feeling shocked at certain things they learn about Joseph Smith or other aspects of Church history, including polygamy. Others don't seem to care, and others aren't bothered at all. Why the variant reactions, and what would your advice be to individuals who struggle to reconcile the new information?

Greg Smith: I suppose there are a number of reasons why some people react more than others to something they hadn't expected. There are probably as many reasons as people, but some general reasons might include the following (in my experience):

1. The context in which the "false" or "incomplete" view of things was taught—if, for example, someone came from a home in which Joseph Smith was made out to be superhuman, or virtually without flaw, then discovering that this is not the case threatens a whole host of emotional past experiences. One doesn't have to just re-evaluate one's view of Joseph, but one's view of one's parents, one's upbringing, and perhaps an entire world view. This is, to say the least, frightening (or at least intimidating).¹

2. Many of us crave certainty. If we can simply read what a Church leader says, and obey without question or thought or struggle over some of the messy complications of life, there is a certain comfort to that. Realizing that a Church leader is not perfect suddenly throws the responsibility back on our shoulders. And, people often over-react to that sort of discovery. If they find that a Church leader was fallible in their understanding of a certain (usually peripheral to the gospel) issue, they suddenly decide they can't be trusted about anything, ever. It's a sort of all-or-nothing thinking that in fact does not change, but simply swings between poles.

3. I think it matters where they hear the new information, and by whom. Many critics are very happy to lead their marks part of the way and then abandon them. Context matters, and it helps a great deal if they can see others model how a revised understanding is not just workable, but actually advantageous to the old view.

4. To some degree, I think experience and secular education matter—for good or ill. From what I have seen, the people most at risk are those who fancy themselves intellectuals or "smart," but who are at best only at the beginning of their intellectual development. These people tend to have an exaggerated idea of how much they know and an overconfidence in their own conclusions. To be truly wise, as Socrates noted, is to know that you know nothing (or relatively little, anyway!) With more experience, people can appreciate the fact that they (like everyone) have their biases, cognitive filters, and blind spots—its then easier to understand why history can be difficult to sort out and even the evidences we use are not pure "facts," but interpretations made by people on the scene, and then in the present day. One still sees this problem in some LDS historians who claim to be "objective" or "functionally objective"—an absurd claim that betrays a complete unawareness of their own fallibility and an over-confidence in their conclusions. As someone trained in the sciences, I'm always amazed at those in the humanities who assume a pose of far greater certainty than a scientist ever would, based on far more nuanced, incomplete, and biased data sets. If science is "forever tentative," then history and the social sciences even more so.

5. I think a huge blind spot is presentism—most people just aren't interested in history, of any sort. They have, at best, a very vague historical understanding of even the most basic things. History is a foreign country. Those of 1800 probably have more in common with those of 1300 in their overall worldview and experience than they do with people in 2000. And so, people tend to project modern experiences and expectations on the past—Lehi is no more than an LDS stake president who happens to be in the desert, rather than a pre-second temple Israelite.² We try to liken scriptures "unto ourselves," but often miss the step of figuring out what the meaning of the scripture was to those who received it, so we can profitably extend the lesson to ourselves. Accustomed to a society and culture of rapid change, we have difficulty understanding how foreign Joseph's time was to ours.³

6. Reactions to difficulties also depend upon whether people have any "rock solid" things they are grounded on.⁴ Those with a firm personal witness of Jesus' divinity and the Book of Mormon's truth may be momentarily rocked, but they are rarely shaken. When I read people who have left the Church over these issues, I'm always surprised at how superficial their knowledge of scripture (especially the Book of Mormon) seems to be. (I've even noted that tendency in material written while they were still active, practicing members.) Sometimes a difficult historical fact is a "wake up call" when we have been in spiritual slumber, just coasting along. It suddenly brings the problem to the fore, but its not like the problem wasn't grumbling along beneath the surface—this just brings it to our attention, and demands action.⁵ Many such things can do that—illness of a loved one, divorce, financial reverse—sudden historical awareness is just a subset of a broader phenomenon. People sometimes like to adopt a more noble "brave thinker" pose when describing it.

7. People who expect (even if unconsciously) to be "spoon fed" seem to become more troubled. Some expect to learn everything they need to know about Church history in their D&C class in Sunday School once every 4 years. If people have a long practice in learning outside of an official Church context, they are simply less surprised and less troubled by new information because they expect to constantly be finding new information. If I read a book and don't learn things and have my expectations reversed, I consider it a wasted effort. The most profitable way I've found to read scripture is to constantly ask, "What deep-seated notion of mine should be challenged?" The scriptures generally offended those who heard them—so, I try to be a bit offended too. If the scriptures are always confirming and praising what we think and do, I suspect we are not reading them properly. For me, they are an on-going rebuke coupled with invitation.⁶

FOOTNOTES

[1]
Richard Bushman discussed this problem in his Introductory paper to the 2008 Bushman seminar. See "Bushman's Introduction to 'Joseph Smith and His Critics' Seminar," LifeOnGoldPlates.com, August 14, 2008. The image is adapted from Edwin Hartley Pratt (author) and Frederick Williams (artist), "The composite man as comprehended in fourteen anatomical impersonations. 2nd ed.," Chicago, 1901, National Library of Medicine, nlm.nih.gov.

[2]
On first and second temple Judaism and the Book of Mormon, see Stephen D. Ricks, "Adam's Fall in the Book of Mormon, Second Temple Judaism, and Early Christianity," Chapter 18, The Disciple as Scholar: Essays on Scripture and the Ancient World in Honor of Richard Lloyd Anderson (FARMS, 2000). See also Kevin Christensen, "The Deuteronomist De-Christianizing of the Old Testament," FARMS Review 16:2, pp. 59-90.

[3]
See 1 Nephi 19:23. See also BHodges, "Liken With Care," LifeOnGoldPlates.com, August 29, 2008.

[4]
President Spencer W. Kimball spoke of "reservoirs of faith" to assist us during difficult times. See Spencer W. Kimball, “President Kimball Speaks Out on Planning Your Life,” Tambuli, Jun. 1982, 38; or Faith Precedes the Miracle, (Deseret Book, 1972), pp. 110–11.

[5]
Elder Neal A. Maxwell noted a similar idea at the October 2000 General Conference: "We can also allow for redemptive turbulence, individually and generally (see 2 Ne. 28:19). Hearts set so much upon the things of the world may have to be broken (see D&C 121:35). Preoccupied minds far from Him may be jolted by a 'heads up' (see Mosiah 5:13)," Neal A. Maxwell, “The Tugs and Pulls of the World,” Ensign, Nov 2000, 35–37.

[6]
A brilliant little book that calls for better study of the canon is James E. Faulconer, Scripture Study: Tools and Suggestions (FARMS, 1999).