Dangerous Dichotomous Thinking

Saw this quote:

“Mormonism must stand or fall on the story of Joseph Smith. He was either a Prophet of God, divinely called, properly appointed and commissioned or he was one of the biggest frauds this world has ever seen. There is no middle ground. If Joseph was a deceiver, then he should be exposed, his claims should be refuted, and his doctrines shown to be false…” – Doctrine of Salvation, 1:188-89 – President Joseph Fielding Smith

I don’t like this type of thinking…because there are things JS did that are buried in history and COULD be construed as fraudulent, but we can’t be sure. Further, everyone makes mistakes, and what is fraudulent and what is not is a matter of judgment. Also, this statement leaves no room for middle ground. The other thing that bothers me is that although this prophet seems to be embracing refutation and intellectual discussion (not a bad thing), our church tends to favor truth discovery on the basis of subjective feelings rather than refutation.

SilentDawning, I am totally with you on this topic. I believe this is why so many people I know and love are having such a hard time with church history right now. The standard LDS testimony is completely based on a white washed image of Joseph Smith. When one learns some of the less savory historical facts of Joseph Smith, this testimony can easily crumble.

“Mormonism must stand or fall on the story of Joseph Smith. He was either a Prophet of God, divinely called, properly appointed and commissioned or he was one of the biggest frauds this world has ever seen. There is no middle ground. If Joseph was a deceiver, then he should be exposed, his claims should be refuted, and his doctrines shown to be false…” – Doctrine of Salvation, 1:188-89 – President Joseph Fielding Smith

If someone’s perspective is black and white they will likely communicate their faith in black and white terms. Joseph Fielding Smith is only speaking for Joseph Fielding Smith.

This is an image that I reduced down to two colors, black and white. If this was all someone could see how might they describe the image?
[attachment=1]cat_wave_bw.jpg[/attachment]

Here is the same image before reducing the colors.
[attachment=0]cat_wave_color.jpg[/attachment]

Someone with a black and white perspective may see a wave in the ocean, a mountain range covered in snow, anything that their imagination allows them to see. Someone with a perspective that sees color may think, “hey, a cat.”

Each perspective has it’s limitations. The picture may not be as clear in black and white but it can fuel the imagination. Is it a mountain, is it a person getting hit in the back by a wave, is it an old person getting out of bed, etc. The color image can steer people towards a more rigid initial conclusion. It’s a cat. Our limited perspective, be it black and white or color, can either steer us towards black and white conclusions or away from them.

In the context of a faith crisis, after the dust settles we might feel like we can see more clearly, the image is now in color and in focus, now we know the real story, but we may have just traded one rigid set of conclusions for another. I try to always remember that my perspective is limited and that I don’t have the answers. It can be freeing. I can see the mountains, the person getting hit by the wave, the old person getting out of bed, and the cat. Maybe with time I’ll have a new perspective (3D image?) and see a whole other world that I’m currently blind to.

Random thoughts:

What would the conversation be like between one colorblind person and someone who is not if they were to take a colorblind test? What if both people were really stubborn.

Religion is subjective enough to be like a colorblind and Rorschach test combined in one. If people start insisting/arguing that what they see is “The Interpretation” the best thing for me to do might be to sit back and listen for things that I didn’t see myself, take all the suggestions in and let people fill in the gaps of my imagination and colorblindness.

Happy end of the world day!

JFS was JFS.

I am me.

Having said that, I agree that black-and-white, all-or-nothing thinking is dangerous – and not just because it can shatter. It is just as dangerous when it doesn’t shatter.

I liked the discussion on dichotomous thinking from the archives here

My take is that I prefer color. But think that rules are black and white for simplicity reasons and for action. Once we can agree on the speed limit, we can drive orderly. Even if other drivers will behave differently about it, I stick to my speed (or not) based on the rules agreed upon. Authorities have powers to maintain order based on rules. Individuals can challenge authority through proper channels while rules remain in place until changed.

There is a place for that in organizations that need leadership to drive action, and followers to agree on rules. Most definitions and ideas are relative and need a rule to judge by. Opposition in all things. While that creates dichotomous definitions, it does not require dichotomous thinking, which is where some people make the mistake.

Organization’s rules avoid a debate in every instance.

Today is Thursday, should I drive 25 or 55?

The road is wet, maybe I should go slower?

I have a new car, it is equipped to go faster. Just because others don’t shouldn’t limit me, right?

I’m in a hurry, in my situation I should be allowed to go 55.

That old grandma should be going faster.

That young high schooler should be going slower.

Well…for simplicity…let’s just define the speed limit at 45 on that road, no gray area. You are either speeding and risk a ticket, or not speeding. That’s the rule. It’s black and white. (There is usually a little gray area that exists…going 5 over is an “unwritten” rule, usually safe to avoid a ticket…but definition wise that is not how the law is written…technically 1 mph over is speeding).

Teach correct principles and let them govern themselves.

The gray areas (all the colors) are still there for individuals on what they do, because going 25 is not safe in that area for other traffic, but the rule wasn’t about that situation so that gray area just gets handled by the individual within the rule…

…but for simplicity, a definition as been agreed upon…right, wrong or indifferent…it is what it is and becomes helpful to interact with others or it is changed through proper channels.

Even if the speed limit is not perfect…it is useful to the community of individuals. (Just like prophets).

“He was either a Prophet of God, divinely called, properly appointed and commissioned or he was one of the biggest frauds this world has ever seen. There is no middle ground. If Joseph was a deceiver…”

I think most members will want to focus on the call and authority that defines him as a prophet called of god (not the actions the qualify him as a prophet), then the rule covers the rest. The rule is that prophets are called, they are not perfect and will make mistakes, but are in communication with God and are righteous in their intentions, even when they get it wrong.

By creating 2 categories for simplicity, Joseph is either a prophet or he is not.

The middle ground is captured in the broad definitions being used, in the dichotomous definitions. Even while the “thinking” can vary greatly.

I agree with you SD,

“there are things JS did that are buried in history and COULD be construed as fraudulent, but we can’t be sure. Further, everyone makes mistakes, and what is fraudulent and what is not is a matter of judgment.”

Some are true prophets, and some prophets may make fraudulent mistakes, but are not frauds. Some claim to be prophets, make fraudulent mistakes, and are frauds.

If I can find peace in that line of thinking, then I can capture the gray and middle part (prophets make fraudulent mistakes) into the “white” category (he is a prophet–because that includes fraudulent prophets), and not the “black” category (fraud).

I think others see it different than me. They would make it “white” (prophets speak truth) or “black” (frauds make mistakes, mislead, do hidden things, stretch the truth, embellish, and tell lies to mislead others).

If the gray area is going to be captured in the black category…then that is their definition.

I see it different…I put the gray into the white and go to church and call it good, while my mind thinks in shades of colors like nibbler explained with a wave and a cat.

Wordsmithing? Nuance? Mental gymnastics? Well…what isn’t in life for defining things? Once I have a rule…I don’t do the gymnastics in every situation, just like my speed…I just go forward my way with my thinking.