Why would someone "accomodate" the bad stuff?

[_Sethbag]

In my opinion there is good about the LDS church, and there is bad about the LDS church.

The good, I believe, is what is brought to the church by the millions of well-intentioned individuals who have made up its active membership now and in the past, and who honestly and sincerely desire happiness, and work to make the church something that can help foster that.

The bad, I believe, is that this church, however well-intentioned, isn't actually true, just like none of the other churches or religions out there are true. The symptoms of this bad are the historical "problems" with the church. They are things which ought to demonstrate to someone that Joseph Smith was not really a true prophet of an actual, literal God, and that his revelations were really created by Joseph Smith and not received by Joseph Smith from Jesus or God.

Now, if the bad things are, as I believe, symtoms which ought to demonstrate that Joseph Smith wasn't really a true prophet, and so forth, then why would one wish to "accomodate" these things in such a way as to keep believing in Joseph Smith's prophetic role?

I don't believe there really is such accomodation. What would it mean to "accomodate" a fact which demonstrates that Joseph Smith wasn't a prophet of God, while believing that he in fact was a prophet of God? I don't believe that accomodation is truly compatible with continued belief. I can only say that, rather than accomodation, there is only denial.

One perfect example of this is the Book of Abraham. It's perfectly obvious to anyone not in total denial, that Joseph Smith based his "translation" on the Breathing Permit scrolls, and that it wasn't a translation so much as an invention and an imposition. It is difficult to imagine how anyone could continue believing in Joseph Smith's prophetic calling, while also believing that Joseph Smith made up the Book of Abraham and represented, fraudulently, to his flock that he had translated it from the Breathing Permit scroll. And, indeed, we don't see apologists or others who actually know anything about the Book of Abraham problems "accomodating" these facts. Instead, you see them denying these facts. They will claim that it is not at all obvious that Joseph claimed to translate (in any kind of conventional-like meaning of the word) the Book of Abraham from the Breathing Permit scroll. They will point to absurd theories like the Missing Scroll theory, the Catalyst theory, and so forth. Anything other than the basic truth, which is that Joseph Smith made it up.

Even the polygamy is denied, to an extent. I don't mean the way they try to minimize the number of women Joseph is thought to have "married" in his farcical, extra-legal private and secret ceremonies. I don't mean in the way they try to deny, as much as possible, that Joseph Smith is likely to have had sex with very many of these women, even though every "official" justification for polygamy revolves around bringing forth seed, section 132 refers to the practice as not adultery (why would adultery be an issue if he wasn't having sex with them?), and so forth. No, I mean denial of a sort, where all of the "blame" for the polygamy is deflected from Joseph Smith and instead directed to God, by claiming that Joseph Smith was reluctant, that it was a hard trial, that he didn't really want to marry the women, etc., but had to, because God commanded him to do it. That is denial of responsibility, since they can't deny the fact of these marriages, at least not the better-documented ones.

There are many more things that could be discussed in this context, but this ought to suffice for this first post. I honestly don't think that when apologists talk about believing members "accomodating" the troublesome history, they really mean it. I believe they really mean "defusing" the history, by spinning it, by reinterpreting it, by making the "semantic argument" (Joseph didn't lie when he denied practicing polygamy, so much as play the semantic argument - yeah, right). And by just plain making up bogus alternative explanations for the evidence, all intended to deflect criticism from Joseph Smith and keep intact the illusion of his prophetic calling.

I would like to understand what it is about a person's psyche that can be so attached to an idea, like Joseph Smith's prophetic calling, that it will willingly swallow patently and obviously bogus spin and reinterpretation of evidence that would otherwise serve to contradict the claims one believes in.

I'd really like to understand how Bushman does it. His whole spin-job on Joseph Smith is incredible. How does one get into a state where creating such an elaborate spin-job is more palatable than just accepting a bitter truth and dealing with the consequences? Of all people, folks like Bushman ought to know better, yet to him, Joseph Smith has to have been a true prophet, no matter what.

Oh well, I'm losing my train of thought, which is understandable since I'm up to 3 AM again. Arg. Talk to you all later.

[_beastie]

Have you read Eric Hoffer's book The True Believer? It may offer some insight into this phenomenon. Here's one citation that I think is applicable:

“So tenaciously should we cling to the world revealed by the Gospel, that were I to see all the Angels of Heaven coming down to me to tell me something different, not only would I not be tempted to doubt a single syllable, but I would shut my eyes and stop my ears, for they would not deserve to be either seen or heard.” (Luther) To rely on the evidence of the senses and of reason is heresy and treason. It is startling to realize how much unbelief is necessary to make belief possible. What we know as blind faith is sustained by innumerable unbeliefs. The fanatical Japanese in Brazil refused to believe for four years the evidence of Japan’s defeat. The fanatical communist refuses to believe any unfavorable report or evidence about Russia, nor will he be disillusioned by seeing with his own eyes that the cruel misery inside the Soviet promise land.

It is the true believers ability to “shut his eyes and stop his ears” to facts that do not deserve to be either seen or heard which is the source of his unequaled fortitude and constancy. He cannot be frightened by danger nor disheartened by obstacles nor baffled by contradictions because he denies their existence. Strength of faith, as Bergson pointed out, manifests itself not in moving mountains but in not seeing mountains to move. And it is the certitude of his infallible doctrine that renders the true believer impervious to the uncertainties, surprises and the unpleasant realities of the world around him.

Thus the effectiveness of a doctrine should not be judged by its profundity, sublimity or the validity of the truths it embodies, but by how thoroughly it insulates the individual from his self and the world as it is. What Pascal said of an effective religion is true of any effective doctrine: it must be “contrary to nature, to common sense, and to pleasure”.

I think that the real True Believers in Mormonism are, in fact, LDS apologists who know all the "bad stuff" and "accommodate" the bad stuff so they can keep believing. They are the ones who simply cannot lose faith - not due to the fact that they have some sort of uber-superior faith, but because the cost of losing that faith is too high. Of course this is subconscious, they're usually not sitting around calculating whether or not they can "afford" to lose faith. Their mind has already factored that for them. I think it is very apparent in the notable confirmation bias that occurs so often in these discussions. I see the same bad evidence recycled again and again for the Book of Mormon, for example, even by the same people who have participated in discussions where the bad evidence had been thoroughly debunked. It's like their minds have a big fat pink eraser that magically erases this information from their memory banks, so a few months later they trot out the same flawed evidence.

Here's another Hoffer statement that is applicable to Mormonism in particular:

Whence comes the impulse to proselytize?

Intensity of conviction is not the main factor which impels a movement to spread its faith to the four corners of the earth: “religions of great intensity often confine themselves to contemning, or destroying, or at best pitying what is not themselves.” Nor is the impulse to proselytize an expression of an overabundance of power which as Bacon has it “is like a great flood, that will be sure to overflow.” The missionary zeal seems rather an expression of some deep misgiving, some pressing feeling of insufficiency at the center. Proselytizing is more a passionate search for something not yet found than a desire to bestow upon the world something we already have. It is a search for a final and irrefutable demonstration that our absolute truth is indeed the one and only truth. The proselytizing fanatic strengthens his own faith by converting others. The creed whose legitimacy is the most easily challenged is likely to develop the strongest proselytizing impulse. It is doubtful whether a movement which does not profess some preposterous and patently irrational dogma can be possessed of that zealous drive which “must either win men or destroy the world.” It is also plausible that those movements with the greatest inner contradiction between profession and practice – that is to say with a strong feeling of guilt – are likely to be the most fervent in imposing their faith on others.

The passion for proselytizing and the passion for world dominion are both perhaps symptoms of some serious deficiency at the center. It is probably as true of a band of apostles or conquistadors as it is a band of fugitives setting out for a distant land that they escape from an untenable situation at home. And how often indeed do the three meet, mingle, and exchange their parts.

I think this is particularly true of LDS internet apologists who "proselytize" their FARMish beliefs.

One last Hoffer quote:

The effectiveness of a doctrine does not come from its meaning but from its certitude. No doctrine however profound and sublime will be effective unless it is presented as the embodiment of the one and only truth. It must be the one word from which all things are and all things speak. Crude absurdities, trivial nonsense and sublime truths are equally potent in readying people for self-sacrifice if they are accepted as the sole, eternal truth.

It is obvious, therefore, that in order to be effective a doctrine must not be understood, but rather has to be believed in. We can be absolutely certain only about things we do not understand. A doctrine that is understood is shorn of its strength. Once we understand a thing, it is as if it had originated in us. And, clearly, those who are asked to renounce the self and sacrifice it cannot see eternal certitude in anything which originates in the self. The fact that they understand a thing fully impairs its validity and certitude in their eyes.

The devout are always urged to seek the absolute truth with their hearts and not their minds. “It is the heart which is conscious of God, not the reason.” Rudolph Hess, when swearing in the entire Nazi party in 1934, exhorted his hearers: “Do not seek Adolf Hitler with your brains: all of you will find him with the strength of your hearts.” When a movement begins to rationalize its doctrine and make it intelligible, it is a sign that its dynamic span is over; that it is primarily interested in stability. For, as will be shown later, the stability of a regime requires the allegiance of the intellectuals, and it is to win them rather than to foster self-sacrifice in the masses that doctrine is made intelligible.

If a doctrine is not unintelligible, it has to be vague; and if neither unintelligible or vague, it has to be unverifiable. One has to get to heaven or the distant future to determine the truth of an effective doctrine. When some part of a doctrine is relatively simple, there is a tendency among the faithful to complicate and obscure it. Simple words are made pregnant with meaning and made to look like symbols in a secret message. There is thus an illiterate air about the most literate true believer. He seems to use words as if he were ignorant of their true meaning. Hence, too, his taste for quibbling, hair-splitting and scholastic tortuousness.

[_Runtu]

I don't understand it, either. My former manager at the Church Office Building, who now occupies a fairly prominent position in the management structure there, told me that he simply weighs the good against the bad and finds the good outweighs the bad (such a ringing endorsement of the church). I guess I'm with you in believing that it really doesn't matter if the good outweighs the bad. What matters is whether it's true or not.

[_truth dancer]

I agree that the true believers are the apologists.

One thing that has really makes sense to me, as I have read about this phenomenon, is the neurology of belief.

The most fabulous book on this topic is, Phantoms in the Brain; probing the mysteries of the human mind, by Ramachandran.

The book explains how our beliefs come to exist and why, for some it is nearly impossible to let go of the beliefs. There is a "hard wiring" so to speak, in our brains. It is as if these people literally, physcially, neurologically, can't release their belief.

Holding onto beliefs (in the sense of the true believer) is a neurological phenomenon, that has to do how our brains organize our experience of life.

~dancer~

[_Scottie]

Do you guys completely dismiss any and all evidence that supports the Book of Mormon? Or are you like me, where you give it proper weight, but it just isn't enough to hold up to the mountains of evidence against the church?

"The spirit confirmed it" is also a HUGE player in apologetics. Since it has been confirmed, and they can not deny this confirmation, they have no other option than to accomodate the problems. The other alternative is to deny what the HG told them, which is a one way ticket to hell. Some even believe that is the unpardonable sin.

[_Runtu]

Do you guys completely dismiss any and all evidence that supports the Book of Mormon? Or are you like me, where you give it proper weight, but it just isn't enough to hold up to the mountains of evidence against the church?

I don't think there's any indisputable evidence that supports the Book of Mormon, but there is some stuff that is interesting and positive. So, yes, I don't just dismiss stuff like NHM, but it kind of pales compared to the avalanche of evidence against Mormon scripture.

"The spirit confirmed it" is also a HUGE player in apologetics. Since it has been confirmed, and they can not deny this confirmation, they have no other option than to accomodate the problems. The other alternative is to deny what the HG told them, which is a one way ticket to hell. Some even believe that is the unpardonable sin.

That's exactly right. Apologetics operates from the a priori assumption that the church and gospel are true (and that's almost always based on a spiritual witness), so every piece of evidence, pro or con, is seen in that light.

[_beastie]

Do you guys completely dismiss any and all evidence that supports the Book of Mormon? Or are you like me, where you give it proper weight, but it just isn't enough to hold up to the mountains of evidence against the church?

No, I don't just dismiss it out-of-hand. I spent quite a bit of time educating myself about ancient mesoamerica partly in order to fairly evaluate these "evidences". (I have no interest in the Old World "evidences", because so much was already known about ancient Israel, in my opinion, it's not possible for any of those evidences to be more than mildly interesting in a literary sort of way.) I wrote lengthy essays explaining the fundamental problems that still exist for the Book of Mormon, even with the help of LGT and translation errors.

http://zarahemlacitylimits.com/wiki/ind ... esoamerica

"The spirit confirmed it" is also a HUGE player in apologetics. Since it has been confirmed, and they can not deny this confirmation, they have no other option than to accomodate the problems. The other alternative is to deny what the HG told them, which is a one way ticket to hell. Some even believe that is the unpardonable sin.

Yes, it is a huge player, but I think it is more complex than that. For example, I had a strong spiritual confirmation that the Book of Mormon was "the word of God", but I still lost faith when presented with sufficient evidence to warrant that loss of faith. And there are some apologists who seem to not have experienced a notable testimonial experience like I did, and instead have testimonies of the spirit that are somewhat vaguer. So until I hear a better hypothesis, I'm going with Eric Hoffer's explanation of why True Believers are True Believers. (which is a psychological version of the investment paradigm)

[_truth dancer]

"The spirit confirmed it" is also a HUGE player in apologetics. Since it has been confirmed, and they can not deny this confirmation, they have no other option than to accomodate the problems. The other alternative is to deny what the HG told them, which is a one way ticket to hell. Some even believe that is the unpardonable sin.

Fear is a powerful motivator for belief.

If you think by not believing something you will be harmed for eternity, you have a powerful reason to keep believeing no matter what.

~dancer~

Ohhh also, I do not dismiss, out of hand, what some claim as Book of Mormon evidence, but the more I read and understand the more I am convinced there is nothing.

[_Hoops]

I appreciate all of you having a reasoned and level response to others concerns. I wonder if sethbag could reconcile these two statements made:

"There is a "hard wiring" so to speak, in our brains. It is as if these people literally, physcially, neurologically, can't release their belief." - truth dancer

"They are things which ought to demonstrate to someone that Joseph Smith was not really a true prophet of an actual, literal God" - Sethbag.

I don't think, Sethbag, you are saying that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of imaginary god, are you. Could one phrase your thoughts in this way, "Joseph Smith was not a true prophet of God, if there is one."

And, let's assume that Truth Dancer is on to something here, does his/her statement undergird the idea that their is some kind of deity. And to relate this back to LDS, does this support the idea that I get, true or not, that LDS truth is independent of a reasoned approach of the idea of a deity?

Since I think you guys/gals are very smart I hope you don't find my inquiry beneath you. And I hope this is not too far afield.

[_Some Schmo]

I am absolutely convinced that it has to do with intellectual investment, which then leads to other forms of investment (ie time, money, reputation, etc). Ultimately, it's about comfort.

If a person spends their whole life "buying into" a paradigm, they invest a ton of themselves in order to maintain and protect their investment. When you think of how much the church requires of a person over time, it's little wonder that people want to believe they're doing it for some future benefit. From this standpoint, it seems so obvious to me that people unconsciously choose what to believe. It the confirmation bias thing.

So, to answer the question, "why do people accommodate certain easily disputable beliefs," the answer is clearly "to protect their investment." I also believe this is why people get so pissed off when you show them where their point of view suffers, because they fear the loss of their investment. A clear sign is when they go all ad hominem on your ass.