Click Here to Read My Ongoing Interview with Wade Englund

[_Tal Bachman]

Hi Wade

You write: "I suppose if people in and out of the Church were relatively ignorant of the nature of faith and knowledge, and thus were unaware of the overlap, on several levels, between these two notions (consisting of varying degrees of confidence); or if they were fundamentalistic in their thinking, and were thus overly narrow and rigid in how they conceptualize these notions; then I can see how they might think that...In fact, I think they each represent various aspect of the same epistemology."

1.) You sound impatient with those who don't understand as you do "the nature of faith and knowledge". Would you explain in more detail what you see as the "overlap" between faith and knowledge? Would you say, for example, that if you have faith that something is true, that this is synonymous with having knowledge that something is true? If not, would you explain what you believe at what point faith becomes knowledge, or vice versa?

I think that this might be a fairly important point, because unlike other religions, Mormonism promises knowledge that its founding scripture is "true", or historical, through the Holy Ghost, rather than just encouraging people to believe, or have faith, that it is. In other words, it cannot be held both that Mormon epistemic claims are unique, or uniquely true, while at the same time voiding the meaning of the words used to make those claims so that they become in effect identical to the milder epistemic claims made by other religions. Do you know what I mean?

2.) You write: "Whilst gardening, I can pick up a handful of earth and declare, 'I know without a shadow of a doubt that this is dirt', yet when asked a hypothetical question about whether one can philosophically know whether we or our physical surroundings exist, I can consistently contemplate the possibility that the physical realm could be imagined result of a brain in a vat. It would be silly to think otherwise".

Wade, you seem to be sensitive about these questions, so let me try to explain their rationale. Perhaps then they will make more sense.

As Pres. Hinckley said, and as you agree, either Mormonism is a fraud, or it is not. That is, even Pres. Hinckley acknowledges the logical possibility of fraud by his use of the word "if". (Of course, that in no way implies that he believes it is; only that he acknowledges the logical possibility that it is a fraud).

So, here is why I asked the questions I did. If Mormonism were all it claimed to be, then the explanation for Mormon faith would be, in fact, a direct revelation through the Holy Ghost to Mormons that Mormonism is all it claims to be.

But what would the explanation for Mormon faith be if, by chance, Mormonism was not what it claimed to be? One answer is, that it would be the same explanation that Mormons themselves often give for the devout faith of other religionists. Specifically, that it is the result of very real feelings/"spiritual experiences", which, however, can not be necessarily taken to mean what those feeling them take them to mean. That is, the explanation Mormons provide for the faith of other religionists, is that they have made an unwarranted inference from their own riveting spiritual experiences, that God himself had told them that they, and only they, belonged to the one, true faith.

And as you yourself pointed out, often our desires, histories, yearnings, personalities, needs, etc., can influence, even unconsciously, how we perceive the world. There are very sincere people in the world who you and I would both say, believe in very untrue things. And yet, they believe in them just as devoutly as you and I believe in other things.

So, the reason I ask whether you would even want to know if, by some chance, Mormonism were not what it claims to be, isn't to call into question Mormonism itself, but rather, to take you at your word when you claim that deeply personal things might best explain why we believe what we believe - rather than something else, like, say, a revelation from God or the devil. In other words, my questions are meant to discover whether your own faith might in some ways be similar to that of the devout Muslims who live down the block from you, or the devout Baptists who live down the block from me. That is, that there might simply be a very sincere desire within you, although perhaps not a conscious desire, that Mormonism be true, that affects how you perceive the world. It is a question about your own heart, your own mind, your own devotion to what may or may not be an Ultimate Truth versus devotion to something which you now believe is the Ultimate Truth.

Quick example: My stake president told me that it was totally irrelevant to him whether Joseph Smith told the truth or not, since Mormonism made him a "better husband and father". One other amateur apologist, however, told me he would very much want to know if Mormonism was not what it claimed to be, because what this was all about for him was the truth. He wanted the truth. He was sure the truth was Mormonism; but in the chance it wasn't, he said, he would definitely choose the truth over Mormonism. And he said it with such sincerity and conviction, that I couldn't help but believe him. And I admire him for that, regardless of whatever conclusion he might come to about the church.

So I ask this because I am interested in you, not proving or disproving something or other about the church. I am curious to know where your emotional allegiances would really take you, if by some chance, there was an irreconcilable divide between, say, Joseph Smith's claims, and the truth. You yourself have spoken eloquently about the role of the personal in religious faith; and what I hear you saying at the end of your answer is, that if Mormonism by some chance turned out not to be what we thought it was, that yes, you would want to know that, even though it would not affect your love for Mormonism. Is that right?

[_wenglund]

Hi Wade

You write: "I suppose if people in and out of the Church were relatively ignorant of the nature of faith and knowledge, and thus were unaware of the overlap, on several levels, between these two notions (consisting of varying degrees of confidence); or if they were fundamentalistic in their thinking, and were thus overly narrow and rigid in how they conceptualize these notions; then I can see how they might think that...In fact, I think they each represent various aspect of the same epistemology."

1.) You sound impatient with those who don't understand as you do "the nature of faith and knowledge". Would you explain in more detail what you see as the "overlap" between faith and knowledge? Would you say, for example, that if you have faith that something is true, that this is synonymous with having knowledge that something is true? If not, would you explain what you believe at what point faith becomes knowledge, or vice versa?

It is not that I am impatient, but rather simply clarifying. Your questions presupposed a way of thinking about the Church that I don't share, and thus indavertantly imposed that pressupposing onto me. I wanted to correct that so as to avoid confusion.

I did, though, grant that people may view things the way you said, but I wished to distinguish that way of thinking from how I think (and the way many still in the Church may think as well).

More importantly, I was hinting at possible reasons why you and others may have lost your faith in the Church, while I and others have retained ours (more on this below).

As for the overlap of faith and knowlegde, I think the two notions may be arrayed along a spectrum from blind faith to perfect knowledge. I see this as being the case for individual precepts as well complex concepts and even whole epistemologies or paradigms. As one moves from blind faith to perfect knowledge, the proportion of faith to knowledge decreases and the level of confidence and certitude as knowledge increases. Once that proportion balances in favor of knowledge, I think it is appropriate to use the words "faith" and "knowledge" (or "I believe" and "I know") interchangeably to describe one's position on religious matters. And, the greater the confidence and certitude, the more appropriate it is to consider it "knowledge" or to say "I know", even if not a perfect knowledge.

The same is true with secular matters/epistemologies. One may scientifically formulate a secular belief (hypothesis/theory) based on what one has been told or innitially observed, and then through the process of testing that belief and making additional observations, one may inductively or deductively increase in confidence in that belief. Once that level of confidence becomes high, one may appropriately consider the belief as "knowledge", though one may not have a perfect knowledge thereof. There are a number of foundational and infrastructural notions in science that are inductively derived (particularly in the soft sciences), and thus not provable to an absolute certainty, yet these notion comprise a significant portion of the knowledge-base of science. I think it would be silly to quibble about referring to these unproveable, though highly confident, scientific notions as "knowledge" (or to say "I know ____" or "I think _______") rather than as beliefs (or to say "I believe" or "I have faith that____").

But, I understand and respect that, whether due to ignorance or fundamentalistic thinking or otherwise, there are those who may view, or narrowly and rigidly define/categorizes, faith and knowledge mutually exclusively. And, I can respect that. I just don't happen to see it that way myself, and when asked questions that may inadvertantly presuppose this view/definition, I can only accurately answer by correcting the mistaken presupposition in my case. Does that help?

I think that this might be a fairly important point, because unlike other religions, Mormonism promises knowledge that its founding scripture is "true", or historical, through the Holy Ghost, rather than just encouraging people to believe, or have faith, that it is. In other words, it cannot be held both that Mormon epistemic claims are unique, or uniquely true, while at the same time voiding the meaning of the words used to make those claims so that they become in effect identical to the milder epistemic claims made by other religions. Do you know what I mean?

I think this is an important point as well. But, I think you are again indavertantly imposing your fundamentalistic view/definitions of faith and knowledge onto the Church. The Church, through the scriptures and teachings, is merely suggesting yet another means for spiritual-truth-discovery in addition to those suggested by other Christian faiths, and a means by which one may attain great confidence in the verity of the CoJCoLDS truth claims than may be obtained through the means suggested by other Chrisian faiths. The meaning of words are not being voided, but the Chruch is simply using broader and more flexible and informed definitions than you. Okay?

2.) You write: "Whilst gardening, I can pick up a handful of earth and declare, 'I know without a shadow of a doubt that this is dirt', yet when asked a hypothetical question about whether one can philosophically know whether we or our physical surroundings exist, I can consistently contemplate the possibility that the physical realm could be imagined result of a brain in a vat. It would be silly to think otherwise".

Wade, you seem to be sensitive about these questions, so let me try to explain their rationale. Perhaps then they will make more sense.

As Pres. Hinckley said, and as you agree, either Mormonism is a fraud, or it is not. That is, even Pres. Hinckley acknowledges the logical possibility of fraud by his use of the word "if". (Of course, that in no way implies that he believes it is; only that he acknowledges the logical possibility that it is a fraud).

So, here is why I asked the questions I did. If Mormonism were all it claimed to be, then the explanation for Mormon faith would be, in fact, a direct revelation through the Holy Ghost to Mormons that Mormonism is all it claims to be.

But what would the explanation for Mormon faith be if, by chance, Mormonism was not what it claimed to be? One answer is, that it would be the same explanation that Mormons themselves often give for the devout faith of other religionists. Specifically, that it is the result of very real feelings/"spiritual experiences", which, however, can not be necessarily taken to mean what those feeling them take them to mean. That is, the explanation Mormons provide for the faith of other religionists, is that they have made an unwarranted inference from their own riveting spiritual experiences, that God himself had told them that they, and only they, belonged to the one, true faith.

And as you yourself pointed out, often our desires, histories, yearnings, personalities, needs, etc., can influence, even unconsciously, how we perceive the world. There are very sincere people in the world who you and I would both say, believe in very untrue things. And yet, they believe in them just as devoutly as you and I believe in other things.

So, the reason I ask whether you would even want to know if, by some chance, Mormonism were not what it claims to be, isn't to call into question Mormonism itself, but rather, to take you at your word when you claim that deeply personal things might best explain why we believe what we believe - rather than something else, like, say, a revelation from God or the devil. In other words, my questions are meant to discover whether your own faith might in some ways be similar to that of the devout Muslims who live down the block from you, or the devout Baptists who live down the block from me. That is, that there might simply be a very sincere desire within you, although perhaps not a conscious desire, that Mormonism be true, that affects how you perceive the world. It is a question about your own heart, your own mind, your own devotion to what may or may not be an Ultimate Truth versus devotion to something which you now believe is the Ultimate Truth.

Quick example: My stake president told me that it was totally irrelevant to him whether Joseph Smith told the truth or not, since Mormonism made him a "better husband and father". One other amateur apologist, however, told me he would very much want to know if Mormonism was not what it claimed to be, because what this was all about for him was the truth. He wanted the truth. He was sure the truth was Mormonism; but in the chance it wasn't, he said, he would definitely choose the truth over Mormonism. And he said it with such sincerity and conviction, that I couldn't help but believe him. And I admire him for that, regardless of whatever conclusion he might come to about the church.

So I ask this because I am interested in you, not proving or disproving something or other about the church. I am curious to know where your emotional allegiances would really take you, if by some chance, there was an irreconcilable divide between, say, Joseph Smith's claims, and the truth. You yourself have spoken eloquently about the role of the personal in religious faith; and what I hear you saying at the end of your answer is, that if Mormonism by some chance turned out not to be what we thought it was, that yes, you would want to know that, even though it would not affect your love for Mormonism. Is that right?

Again, it isn't that I am "sensative" about the questions, but rather I don't want you to be confused or to confuse your way of thinking with mine. I can't accurately answer your questions when they indadvertently presuppose things, or consider things, in ways that I don't.

As I understood your reasons for wanting to interview me, it was to better understand how "I" think. What has inadvertly happened, though, is your questions are essentially asking me to answer according to how "you" think. But, I don't think like you. Unlike you, my thoughts aren't focused on hypothetical questions about "what MAY NOT be true", but rather genuinely pursuing "what MAY be true". My mind is positively focused on epistemically growing in faith and knowledge, whereas your's seem negatively focused on hypothetically exploring doubt and possible non-truths. I am interested in determining what really is, whereas you seem interested in what hypothertically may not be. I am interested in my current "emotional allegiances", whereas you are intereseted in my improbable hypothetical allegiances. So, asking these kinds of hypothetical question (regardless the reason), will not help you to better understand how I think or better understand who I am, though it may help me to better see how you think. It also may give some indication as to why you may have lost your faith in the Church and sought to vocally criticize it, and why I retain mine and seek to defend it (though now in a non-apoligetic way).

However, what I think you are really trying to get at is whether I can empathise with, understand, and perhaps even respect those who are waivering in their faith or who have lost it. These are things that can be asked directly without getting into valueless hypotheticals. In fact, I will tell you straight out that I can and do empathize, understand, and to some degree respect them--even if their's is not a direction I have chosen or agree with or even may ever pursue.

What I object to is when others have choosen not to empathise, understand, and respect my faith in return. In other words, it is not so much the loss of faith that is my concern, but the negative and disrespectful response to my faith because of the way in which some have lost their faith.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Tal Bachman]

Hi Wade

In case it was not clear in my explanation above, I am not asking you to adopt a new way of thinking - at least, that is not my intention. I am trying to give you an opportunity to lay bare, via Q & A format, the nature of your own faith. You seem concerned I may be cloaking things, but actually I am being very frank with you. It is very possible to me, and to many other folks, that anyone's belief in anything, especially in any inherently untestable proposition having to do with the meaning of life, may be motivated less by communications from the creator(s) of the universe, than by our own needs. I didn't say the former was impossible, only that the latter can't be ruled out, at least on its face. I am moreover a bit surprised that you should react as you have, since it is you who has advocated exploring the personal and private in your own studies of Mormonism and its critics. My questions are an attempt to let you show that your own faith has the source you would claim for it, namely, real revelation from God.

Perhaps I can do a better job of clarifying all this with an example. In my experience, it is widely assumed amongst church members that those who cease believing do so because they wish to escape the burden of obeying the commandments, or at least wish to escape the divine guilt presumed to be the consequence of such action; or, more charitably, because they simply do not understand the gospel. They were "fundamentalists", etc. On its face, that possibility can't be ruled out, can it? But neither can it be ruled out on its face that faith in Mormonism, or Catholicism, or Moonie-ism, may have as its prime motivation the satisfaction of certain real human needs, even though the believer may feel certain he is receiving revelations from God. It also cannot be ruled out that people - even longtime adherents - may continue believing in any one of these religions precisely because they don't understand something important about them.

So, my questions were not an attempt to find out if you could empathize with those who left, though I appreciate the attribution of benevolent motives to me. Rather, they are just to find out to what extent the nature of your own faith may be attributable to divine revelation versus a profound desire that Mormonism be all it claims. How much, one must wonder, would any religious adherent, and in this case you, want to know if their religion were false, if by chance that was the truth? Does that not make sense to you, Wade? This is probably something you might ask a Jehovah's Witness, though in different words, and it is not really that complicated of a question. In any case, there is a big difference between exploring the nature of someone's faith, and demanding that that person adopt a brand new way of thinking. I am actually asking you directly about your reasons for believing. Perhaps I can add that this is in contrast to the approaches of some church defenders, who rather than do this to those who leave, would much rather just call them names from afar, or cast aspersions on their characters.

You write that "my mind is positively focused on epistemically growing in faith and knowledge, whereas your's seem negatively focused on hypothetically exploring doubt and possible non-truths. I am interested in determining what really is, whereas you seem interested in what hypothertically may not be". Wade, has it occurred to you that you have inadvertently created a false dichotomy between "determing what really is" and determing what "may not be"? There is no conflict here. One way of looking at how we determine what really is, is that we in effect eliminate, Sherlock Holmes-style, a near infinity of possibilities of what might be, but which is not. For example, it is "possible" that the evidence we have of the Holocaust is the result of a small band of Jews who have conspired to invent, and manufacture false evidence for, a story that Germans deliberately wiped out six million Jews during WWII. And it is "possible" that they did this so as to get their own state, reparations from Germany, sympathy, etc. It is also "possible" that aliens created the evidence. It is also "possible" that it wasn't Nazis at all, but German-speaking Egyptians masquerading as Nazis, etc., etc. But the evidence leads us to believe that out of all the conceivable infinity of "possibilities", that the truth is that the Germans deliberately targeted Jews, annihilating millions of them.

If we believed in the "Jewish conspiracy" story, but then began to think critically about it, and wound up seeing that this explanation is implausible to the point of impossible, we don't as a result suffer a "net decrease" in knowledge. We have a net increase, because we've just jettisoned from what's in our heads, mistaken belief masquerading as knowledge, and filled that void instead with real knowledge - or at the very least, a vastly more accurate understanding of the way things are. That is an advance, Wade. Do you know what I mean? When we believe something which isn't true, and then find out it isn't true, we are advancing in understanding and knowledge. But the way you speak makes it seem as though you think just the opposite is true. But of course, it is not. In the same way, I suggest, if Mormonism, regardless of whatever virtues it may have, were not what it claimed, and we found that out, we would actually be doing exactly what you claim to be interested in doing: "determining what really is", by having identified beliefs which were clouding our apprehension of just that. Does that not make sense to you, Wade?

What I hear from you now is that, despite what I mentioned in the paragraph above, you have so little interest in exploring or discovering whether Mormonism might not be what it claims to be, that even the mention of the possibility it is not in a hypothetical question, makes you shut down, and in effect, try to change the subject - notwithstanding the fact that Pres. Hinckley himself has mentioned just this possibility in a General Conference talk ("Loyalty", April 2003). There may be Mormons feeling shaky in their faith reading this. Some of them may be familiar with the emboldening quote from First Presidency counselor J. Reuben Clark: "If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed." So, I suppose my question is, what impression do you think you are giving to wondering Mormons, in refusing even to directly answer questions about what appear to be possible motivations/explanations for your convictions, or that just acknowledge the logical possibility that Mormonism might not be what it claims? Do you think your responses appear to betray a robust and strong Mormon faith, or rather, a weak and defensive one, which senses its own vulnerability to scrutiny?

[_wenglund]

Hi Wade

In case it was not clear in my explanation above, I am not asking you to adopt a new way of thinking - at least, that is not my intention. I am trying to give you an opportunity to lay bare, via Q & A format, the nature of your own faith. You seem concerned I may be cloaking things, but actually I am being very frank with you. It is very possible to me, and to many other folks, that anyone's belief in anything, especially in any inherently untestable proposition having to do with the meaning of life, may be motivated less by communications from the creator(s) of the universe, than by our own needs. I didn't say the former was impossible, only that the latter can't be ruled out, at least on its face. I am moreover a bit surprised that you should react as you have, since it is you who has advocated exploring the personal and private in your own studies of Mormonism and its critics. My questions are an attempt to let you show that your own faith has the source you would claim for it, namely, real revelation from God.

Hi Tal,

Let me clarify as well. I don't think you are trying to "cloak" anything or get me to adopt a new way of thinking. Rather, I believe you are attempting to find out what and how I think by asking questions about things I don't think and in ways I don't typically think. I am just suggesting that you are going about this exactly upside-down.

If you wish to know the source of my faith, don't you think that asking direct questions about my faith and how I came to have that faith would make considerably more sense than asking hypotheticals about what I might believe were I not to have the faith that I have and/or not have attained my faith through the means that I believe I have? I think so...and I see no reason to be surprised that I do. To me, it is the difference between a scientist drilling a core sample to determine the makeup of the soil and Barbara Walters asking "If you were a tree...what kind of tree would you be"? ;-)

Perhaps I can do a better job of clarifying all this with an example. In my experience, it is widely assumed amongst church members that those who cease believing do so because they wish to escape the burden of obeying the commandments, or at least wish to escape the divine guilt presumed to be the consequence of such action; or, more charitably, because they simply do not understand the gospel. They were "fundamentalists", etc. On its face, that possibility can't be ruled out, can it? But neither can it be ruled out on its face that faith in Mormonism, or Catholicism, or Moonie-ism, may have as its prime motivation the satisfaction of certain real human needs, even though the believer may feel certain he is receiving revelations from God. It also cannot be ruled out that people - even longtime adherents - may continue believing in any one of these religions precisely because they don't understand something important about them.

I understand these possibilities. But, if you wish to know what I believe and how and why I believe it, don't you think it more reasonable and practicle to ask directly about it, rather than delving into improbable philosophical hypotheticals? In other words, wouldn't it make more sense to just ask me what I believe and how I came to believe it, rather than asking me if it is possible for me to believe differently than I do and possible that I came by my beliefs differently than I did?

So, my questions were not an attempt to find out if you could empathize with those who left, though I appreciate the attribution of benevolent motives to me. Rather, they are just to find out to what extent the nature of your own faith may be attributable to divine revelation versus a profound desire that Mormonism be all it claims. How much, one must wonder, would any religious adherent, and in this case you, want to know if their religion were false, if by chance that was the truth? Does that not make sense to you, Wade? This is probably something you might ask a Jehovah's Witness, though in different words, and it is not really that complicated of a question. In any case, there is a big difference between exploring the nature of someone's faith, and demanding that that person adopt a brand new way of thinking. I am actually asking you directly about your reasons for believing. Perhaps I can add that this is in contrast to the approaches of some church defenders, who rather than do this to those who leave, would much rather just call them names from afar, or cast aspersions on their characters.

Again, my point isn't about "adopting a brand new way of thinking", it is about your having NOT asked direct questions. You aren't asking what my actual beliefs are and how I may have come by them. You are asking hypotheticals about the possibilities of what I DON'T believe and the possibilities that I may have come by my beliefs in some other way than I believe I did, and the possibilities of what I might do and believe were I NOT to believe the way that I do. This is like trying to learn about cars and how they are made by asking hypothetical question about the possibility that they are horses that were formed through spontaneous generation or evolution. Wouldn't it make more sense to dissect the car and see what it is actually made of, and then research the manufacturing process?

And, no, if I am trying to learn about Jehovah Witnesses I would not ask them the kind of hypothetical questions you have been asking me. I would ask them direct questions about what they believe and how they came to believe it.

Now, if I had some other motive in mind--say, conversion, then I might ask those questions. But, not really even then. In such cases I prefer simply to declare what I believe to be the message of truth, and see if it resinates. If it does, then great...and if it doesn't, then I am fine and will tend to leaving it at that.

There are, however, times when I might take a philosophical approach. If I believe someone may be suffering, unawares, from cognitive distortions which are disruptive to themselves and others around them, then I might use a philosophical approach to get them to consider alternitives to their current way of thinking. However, rather than asking them "what if" questions, I would simply state the alternatives and ask if it is reasonable for others to think that way even though the person I am asking the question to may not agree. I may then explore the value of utilizing the alternative way of thinking verses the congnitive distortion, and then if amenable, provide interventions for correcting the cognitive distortion. In fact, there are several threads I have currently underway in this forum where I am doing just that. ;-)

But, I try not to do this under the guise of getting to understand someone better (though conspiracy theories abound that I am trying to "trap" them). Instead, I am doing it by way of group discussion intended to explicate the notions or behaviors at issue.

You write that "my mind is positively focused on epistemically growing in faith and knowledge, whereas your's seem negatively focused on hypothetically exploring doubt and possible non-truths. I am interested in determining what really is, whereas you seem interested in what hypothertically may not be". Wade, has it occurred to you that you have inadvertently created a false dichotomy between "determing what really is" and determing what "may not be"? There is no conflict here.

I am not suggesting a false dichotomy, I am talking about FOCUS, and unless one has double vision, the focus is primarily one way or the other.

Think of it this way. I had a mountain biking buddy who taught me that if I focused on the rocks on the side of a very narrow trail, there will be a tendency for me to run into the rocks. Whereas, if I focused on the trail, the tendency would be to stay on the trail. Having run into my share of rocks, I decided to give the tecnique a try, and sure enough, it worked.

In other words, allegorically, if my mind is focused on the rocks of doubts and disbelief, my mind will tend to head in that direction. Whereas, if my mind is focused on the path of faith, and focused on matters of faith, then my mind will tend to head in that direction. And, since I believe there is more value to be obtained through the path of faith rather than the rocks of doubt/disbelief, it makes sense that that is where I would direct my focus.

One of my heroes, Dr. Phil, likes to say that if we keep looking back at the past, then our past will become our future. However, if we focus on our goals and objectives, then they will become our future.

Does that make sense? It is about FOCUS.

One way of looking at how we determine what really is, is that we in effect eliminate, Sherlock Holmes-style, a near infinity of possibilities of what might be, but which is not. For example, it is "possible" that the evidence we have of the Holocaust is the result of a small band of Jews who have conspired to invent, and manufacture false evidence for, a story that Germans deliberately wiped out six million Jews during WWII. And it is "possible" that they did this so as to get their own state, reparations from Germany, sympathy, etc. It is also "possible" that aliens created the evidence. It is also "possible" that it wasn't Nazis at all, but German-speaking Egyptians masquerading as Nazis, etc., etc. But the evidence leads us to believe that out of all the conceivable infinity of "possibilities", that the truth is that the Germans deliberately targeted Jews, annihilating millions of them.

If we believed in the "Jewish conspiracy" story, but then began to think critically about it, and wound up seeing that this explanation is implausible to the point of impossible, we don't as a result suffer a "net decrease" in knowledge. We have a net increase, because we've just jettisoned from what's in our heads, mistaken belief masquerading as knowledge, and filled that void instead with real knowledge - or at the very least, a vastly more accurate understanding of the way things are. That is an advance, Wade. Do you know what I mean? When we believe something which isn't true, and then find out it isn't true, we are advancing in understanding and knowledge. But the way you speak makes it seem as though you think just the opposite is true. But of course, it is not. In the same way, I suggest, if Mormonism, regardless of whatever virtues it may have, were not what it claimed, and we found that out, we would actually be doing exactly what you claim to be interested in doing: "determining what really is", by having identified beliefs which were clouding our apprehension of just that. Does that not make sense to you, Wade?

I think the Sherlock Holmes-style is a valid methodology, and may even be preferred to other valid methodologies in certain situations (such as when there are relatively few alternitives, and where none of the options clearly stand out as the most plausible), though certainly not in all situations--not the least of which is the example you just used. It would be far less practical to craft a hypothesis for the "conceivable infinity of 'possibilities'", and then test each of those hypothesis, than it would be to formulate just one hypothesis that seems most plausible, and test it--i.e. test the "Germans deliberately targeted jews" hypothesis, and test it. That is the way much of science works, and it is the way much of my faith has been developed.

It is also the predominate mode of pedagogy. We as humans, and children in particular, often learn best by ostensibly being told what is or what is confidently believed to be the case, or by considering what is, rather than being taught or considering the infinite possibilities of what hypothetically could be. So, if your intent is to learn what I believe and how I may have come to believe it, it would make far more sense to ask me what is my belief and how I came by it, rather than explore the infinite improbabilities of what could be my faith and so forth..

Now, if your intent is to have a philosophic discussion with me, and explore together these possibilities, I am somewhat fine with that. I say "somewhat" because...well, it may help to first understand that the value of such questions are inversely dependant upon the strength of one's convictions. By that I mean that the less the strength of conviction the greater the value, and vice versa. For example, if a child doesn't know whether a fire can cause physical harm or not, and it is not clear to the child one way or the other, then the child may take the Sherlock Holmes approach, and start eliminating possibilities by sticking his/her bear hand in the fire. However, after doing that enough times, one may eventual grow in confidence that the fire can be physically harmful. At that point it is of little value to explore the possibilities that the fire is not pysically harmful--particularly to a child's bear hand.

The same principle applies to religious faith. If one has a lot of doubts and little certainty about a given spiritual precept or even a faith tradition, then it may be of value to explore, in Sherlock Holmes style, the broad range of religious beliefs, particularly if none of them stand out as the most plausible. However, once one has developed a high degree of confidence in a religious precept and/or the verity of a faith tradition, there isn't much value in doing so. To do so would be to dismiss or not take into account the level of confidence. Such is not epistemically practical or useful.

What I hear from you now is that, despite what I mentioned in the paragraph above, you have so little interest in exploring or discovering whether Mormonism might not be what it claims to be, that even the mention of the possibility it is not in a hypothetical question, makes you shut down, and in effect, try to change the subject - notwithstanding the fact that Pres. Hinckley himself has mentioned just this possibility in a General Conference talk ("Loyalty", April 2003). There may be Mormons feeling shaky in their faith reading this. Some of them may be familiar with the emboldening quote from First Presidency counselor J. Reuben Clark: "If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed." So, I suppose my question is, what impression do you think you are giving to wondering Mormons, in refusing even to directly answer questions about what appear to be possible motivations/explanations for your convictions, or that just acknowledge the logical possibility that Mormonism might not be what it claims? Do you think your responses appear to betray a robust and strong Mormon faith, or rather, a weak and defensive one, which senses its own vulnerability to scrutiny?

Absolutely not. As explained above, my reluctance to delve into hypotheticals about doubts and untruths, is because it is an upside-down way of learning about me; and even in terms of philosophical discussions, it is not a result of insecurity or vulnerability in the face of scrutiny, but a matter of epistemic focus and the lack of value and utility precisely because of the strength of my convictions. If one is intent on learning about me, the best way to do that is to ask what I believe, and not about what I don't. If one desires a philosophical discussion with me on what is the truth (spiritually speaking), there is little value derived from exploring hypothetical possibilities where there is, at least on my part, already a high confidence in a given belief or faith tradition. To use yet another analogy borrowed from science, here is little value in testing, through hypotheticals, the boiling point of water when one has already proven the hypothesis of "212 degrees Farenheit" sufficiently to be very confident therein. In fact, there is value and utility, in terms of epistemic progress and practicality, in not doing so.

Now, if you are still waivering in your faith, and lack confidence one way or another, then I can see why you might take a Sherlock Holmes approach and philosophically explore various hypotheticals. And, if that is the case, I don't mind sharing my perspective with you. The value and utility to me in such cases would be the chance to lend the strength of my conviction in helping you to strengthen your conviction whatever that may be.

I hope this helps.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Tal Bachman]

Wade

With all due respect, you seem unwilling to understand that you answering my questions would reveal exactly what you suggest this interview ought to reveal, namely, the nature of your faith. And could it be that that is precisely why you will not answer them? Have we not gotten right to the heart of the matter? For what other reason would someone refuse to answer a question as simple as, "If Mormonism were a fraud, would you want to know?".

That you will not answer even this simple question, I suggest, tells us all we really need to know about the nature of your faith. And for that reason, I think our interview has achieved just what it set out to.

Thanks for interview, Wade. I don't know about anyone else, but I think it was pretty revealing.

[_wenglund]

Wade

With all due respect, you seem unwilling to understand that you answering my questions would reveal exactly what you suggest this interview ought to reveal, namely, the nature of your faith. And could it be that that is precisely why you will not answer them? Have we not gotten right to the heart of the matter? For what other reason would someone refuse to answer a question as simple as, "If Mormonism were a fraud, would you want to know?".

That you will not answer even this simple question, I suggest, tells us all we really need to know about the nature of your faith. And for that reason, I think our interview has achieved just what it set out to.

Thanks for interview, Wade. I don't know about anyone else, but I think it was pretty revealing.

That is not the real reason you are folding up the interview tent, is it? Reasonable and secure people don't suddenly break off interviews genuinely intended to learn about others, if the people they are interviewing don't see the value (not to be confused with "refusal") in responding to a few "what if" kinds of questions, and have suggested much more reasonable and effective approaches to learning about them. Certainly, they would not need to frame a lame excuse that stands insipidly against AUTHORITATIVE evidence to the contrary. Nor, for that matter, would they think they have learned something about the person's beliefs other than that the person does not value answering "what if" kinds of questions.

But, I will respect your decision whatever excuse you may give.

As a parting gift, though, let me answer at least one of your valueless (to me) "what if" questions: "If Mormonism were a fraud, would you want to know?"

Yes, I would want to know, and I have wanted to know. However, through the course of investigating that question over the years, I have epistemically and confidently come to the conclusion that it is not a fraud. In other words, I already "know" that it is not a fraud.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Tal Bachman]

Wade

I appreciate that answer.

So now that you've answered that question, you want to keep going?

If so, here's my next question:

Given your love of Mormonism, why in the world would you ever want to know something like that? Your whole life as you know it would dramatically change - and who is to say it would necessarily change for the better? You might be left sobbing for weeks or months. You might have people who don't even know you making fun of you, casting aspersions on your character, labelling you a "fundamentalist" or a man who could no longer control his basest urges and just wanted to "rebel against what he deep down knows is true", and all kinds of things. And you would have no way to refute them. They wouldn't even really want to listen to you, and even if they ever did, they would never fully believe you. Etc. etc.

So, why would you even ever want to know something like that?

This is not a trick question. It's something I asked myself over and over.

What is your answer?

[_wenglund]

Wade

I appreciate that answer.

So now that you've answered that question, you want to keep going?

If so, here's my next question:

Given your love of Mormonism, why in the world would you ever want to know something like that? Your whole life as you know it would dramatically change - and who is to say it would necessarily change for the better? You might be left sobbing for weeks or months. You might have people who don't even know you making fun of you, casting aspersions on your character, labelling you a "fundamentalist" or a man who could no longer control his basest urges and just wanted to "rebel against what he deep down knows is true", and all kinds of things. And you would have no way to refute them. They wouldn't even really want to listen to you, and even if they ever did, they would never fully believe you. Etc. etc.

So, why would you even ever want to know something like that?

This is not a trick question. It's something I asked myself over and over.

What is your answer?

I have wanted to know this for the same reason that I have wanted to know if the Church is genuine and true, regardless of how dramatic the change. My simultaneous pursuit of both questions--they are actually the flip side of the same epistemic coin--and my coming to the confident conclusion that the Church is genuine and true, has produced a dramatic change for good. And, while I have had, at times, tears of loving joy well up in my eyes in gratitude for the blessings that the restored gospel has brought into my life, I can't imagine crying for hours, let alone days or months, either way. And, while I do have people casting aspersions on my character and labelling me as "fundamentalist" or "bigot" or "morgbot" and a variety of other labels (pejorative or otherwise), and I have had people suggesting that my retention of faith is a function of mindless subserviance or slavish gullability, I am open to reasonably and fairly exploring the issue with them, at least to the point where they are willing to listen to me and respect what I have to say, whether they fully believe it or not. And, I can't imagine it would be any different were my epistemic pursuits to have lead me to the improbable end of confidently concluded differently than I have. Again, I am value-driven, and since I deem descernable truths to be of value, I can't see my life disbenefiting whatever the discernable truth may be, and that has, indeed, been the case in the truth I have descerned about the verity and guineness of the CoJCoLDS. After all, I am not a victim ether way, but I am the captian of my epistemic ship, and I take personal responsibility for where it may sail. I am not going to begrudge those who may read the maps and weather charts differently than me, or who determine to sail to a port out of my way--though, I will take action if they fire on my ship or attack my chosen fleet.

In fact, regardless of which side of the epistemic coin I may have confidently landed on, I am of the mind that unless there is a movement underway to continually attack my faith tradition as a whole (whether secular or religious), I would pay the personal slures little mind (dealing with them individually and privately where they usually occur), but would instead focus my heart and mind on increasing in confidence in what I believe is the truth, and further enrich my life with the value derived therefrom.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Tal Bachman]

Hi Wade

Do you mean to say, that you would want to know, because the truth is more important to you than anything which may be masquerading as such?

[_wenglund]

Hi Wade

Do you mean to say, that you would want to know, because the truth is more important to you than anything which may be masquerading as such?

If by "important" you mean "valuable", then I would say, "yes", for the most part.

I hedge because it is conceivable that in certain circumstances the truth may be less valuable than the masquerade. For example, if a husband or wife somehow fell out of love with their spouse, but saw value in the marriage continuing, and felt that the relationship had a better chance of surviving were he or she to pretend to be in love, and through the process of pretending actually fell back in love, then I think the masquerade more important than the truth in such cases. I think this particularly true where young children are involved. I think it better for them, and all parties concerned, were the parents to pretend to love and be loving to each other, at least until after the children have grown. There is scientific liturature to support this position.

There are also unique situations where truths may be at odds, and the introduction of a masquerade may resolve the dilemma, and thus it would be more valuable than the truth. For example, the truth was: I dearly loved my girlfriend and I would never want to intentionally do anything to hurt her. The truth also was: she had purchased a swimming suite that I thought looked hideous on her, but she really liked it and thought it made her look beautiful--and her female friend she went shoppiong with agreed. These two truths were at odds with each other. Now, I had thought that I had found the perfect resolution by telling her another truth--which was that I thought the bathing suite detracted from her natural beauty. However, to my amazement, it didn't suffice, and my first truth was somewhat compromised. I then learned that pretending that the suite looked great on her would have been more valuable than the truth that it was hideous because it help preserved a more valued truth that I loved her and didn't want her to be hurt.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-