Patterns of Justification and Explanation

[Anonymous]

After several thousand posts and many “reads” on various internet sites, here is a list of justifications I’ve heard for certain aspects of the church/gospel/doctrine/LDS experience that can hurt commitment or faith. I find these generic reasons tend to exist when problems are particularly vexing.

1. We don’t know.

I hear this one a lot — particularly regarding historical issues. The fact that detail gets lost in history is part of the reason I think this satisfies some people.

2. All churches have that problem.

It seems that by indicating the problem is present in all churches, then somehow its not so bad in the LDS church. I personally don’t know for sure the problem does exist in other churches, although it seems reasonable that it might.

3. The human frailty argument

This one suggests that human frailty is the cause of the problem, while affirming that the church as a whole is still intact/possessing integrity. This argument claims the problem is isolated, and that the person wasn’t acting under the will of God at the time.

4. The “No Questioning” Argument

This is where people simply say “its not my place to question God”. Or, “that was divinely revealed, so we shouldn’t question it”.

Do you see these as valid at a generic level?

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

After several thousand posts and many “reads” on various internet sites, here is a list of justifications I’ve heard for certain aspects of the church/gospel/doctrine/LDS experience that can hurt commitment or faith. I find these generic reasons tend to exist when problems are particularly vexing…Do you see these as valid at a generic level?

Don’t forget:

5. That’s not essential for my salvation. I.E. all I need to worry about is being temple worthy, faith, hope, and charity, etc. not some obscure points of trivia or unnecessary questions.

6. As Gordon B. Hinckley put it, “It’s behind us” or in other words that’s in the past. The general idea is that we can’t change what already happened and the problem has already been resolved anyway so we should supposedly just move on and stop worrying or talking about this or that historical issue.

7. It’s not fair to apply today’s standards and popular opinions to people that lived in a completely different environment from what we are used to (I.E. it was supposedly normal for 14 year old girls to get married or for otherwise decent and respectable people to be racists back then).

No, I don’t think any of these have much validity in general. I could actually buy into some of these explanations if not for the fact that the Church continues to claim that prophets and apostles speak directly for God and will never lead the Church astray. It’s like they want to have it both ways, as if they still deserve unquestioning trust and obedience in spite of all the times they have already been proven wrong or directly contradicted themselves. Personally I think more Church members and leaders should simply admit that so-called prophets and apostles are just ordinary men that can make mistakes just like everyone else and that revelation just isn’t as reliable as a way to know the truth as the Church has traditionally taught up to this point and let the chips fall where they may because anything less than that is mostly attempting to prolong the inevitable in my opinion. Even if some Church members are satisfied with some of these explanations for their entire lives the problem is still there for their children and grandchildren to deal with at some point down the road.

[Anonymous]

To varying degrees, I see some validity in most of those justifications, including the ones added by DA. I don’t like any of them as reasons not to think about something, but as reasons to know about something and still remain actively involved, faithful, supportive, whatever there certainly is validity.

1. We don’t know.

Absolutely, there is validity in that one, since we really don’t know some things. I believe in trying to understand as comprehensively as possible, but, with some things, theological and historical, there really is no way to know. [e.g., How are spirit children created? I have no freaking clue (and there is absolutely nothing in our scriptural canon that provides an answer), but I really like the idea of having spirit children, even if I disagree with the common, orthodox assumption.] I have no problem whatsoever with, “I don’t know” – when I really don’t know. Also, just to say it, as much as we complain about testimonies that claim to know, we ought to be willing to accept this one.

2. All churches have that problem.

Absolutely, there is validity in that one, since it is true. The problem is when it is used as an excuse to avoid dealing with it proactively if it’s wrong or bad in some way. As simply a factual explanation, there is nothing wrong with it; as a justification for continuation, I don’t like it.

3. The human frailty argument

Absolutely, there is validity in that one, since it is true. My response to this one is the same as to #2, since it simply is the micro version of the macro issue in #2.

4. The “No Questioning” Argument

Nope; no validity in that one for me. I’m not an animal, and I’m not a robot. I was born with a brain, and brains are supposed to question.

5. That’s not essential for my salvation.

Absolutely, there is validity in that one, since it is true in many cases. The rest of my view is the same as #2.

6. As GBH would put it, “That’s in the past.”

That can be valid, and it can be invalid – depending on the issue and the residual issues that might still be important to resolve.

7. It’s not fair to apply today’s standards and popular opinions to people that lived in a completely different environment from what we are used to.

Absolutely, there is validity in that one – for many things but not for some. I don’t want to be held to the standards of a different time; I want to be held to the general standards of my own time and, more importantly, to the standards of my own conscience regardless of time-, geography- or culture-based standards. For example, I can loathe the Priesthood ban and the justifications used for it, but I simultaneously can refuse to condemn the people who instituted and perpetuated it – and even see it as morally wrong but inevitable, based on the time and place in which it originated. I can do the same for ancient people who were polygamous (and current people in some places who still are polygamous). In other words, I can say exactly what #7 says without compromising one bit what I believe now.

[Author]

Posts