This is the first part of a series of blogs on how to react to members of the Church of Jesus Christ who say and do things contrary to truth and testimony — I label them “Resistant Members” because they don’t feel comfortable with some aspect of LDS doctrine, policy, Church leadership, or other things that may put their testimonies at risk.
Provenance of Ideas
I loved working on my doctorate. I wanted to find out why a student could persist on a difficult writing assignment and another student would give up so easily. When I finally got to work on my dissertation, I was excited to be admitted to the fellowship of scholars and to be allowed to contribute to the field of writing pedagogy with my own research.
First, I did a survey of what was out there related to my question. I discovered half a dozen excellent summary articles related to my field of study. They gave me extensive bibliographies—pages and pages—of the best scholars and articles in the field. From my extensive reading I ran into many of these scholars over and over again. I could easily name off two dozen or so scholars who created a legacy of exciting innovations, descriptions of effective pedagogy, and new ideas that needed to be explored. These scholars and their studies gave a depth and clarity to questions I began forming, and ultimately allowed me to formulate and create my particular study built on prior scholarly work.
But everyone has an opinion on how to teach literacy. In fact, Bill Gates at the time told us teachers that we did not have any good scholarship or answers on how to teach effectively, and that he was now (with his “think-tank” of paid businessmen) going to tell us how to do it. And online posts of “magic bullets” for teaching literacy continue to fill the internet – seldom posted by scholars.
So whose scholarship should be trusted? Why does a dissertation rely on the best scholars doing the most rigorous studies? Why does a committee of experts in the field get to determine if the dissertation is indeed an addition to scholarship?
It all boils down to provenance — as with artwork or antiques, if the history of an item shows it to be genuine and valuable, then the provenance is considered good. Similarly, if an idea is based on a foundation of good scholarship, rigorous research, and unbiased review, you can trust it. Credible sources with a clear lineage of references can be trusted. Writers who have put in the requisite time and effort to understand and shape the field can be trusted. Critical thinkers who can give a cogent answer in defense of their ideas can be trusted.
Scholarship thrives on a good and trustworthy provenance of ideas.
But here’s the sad part: People often don’t care about where some ideas originally come from, especially when finding them on the internet. Ideas found there tend to be salacious, funny, or outrageous, particularly if it is something that is easily mocked or fun to lampoon. In fact, the purpose of looking on the internet isn’t to become informed, it’s to upload videos and memes that are entertaining. Don’t worry about the content – it’s better to be outrageous than correct. Social media is, after all, celebrated more for its visceral reaction than any cerebral reflection.
Blogs, Facebook postings, subreddits are popular more for their kneejerk emotions than for any rational viewpoints. And scholarship is often the last consideration. Especially among current online Mormon posters.
Among members (or purported members) of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, use of social media is the best and the worst. There’s official LDS websites and good ancillary scholarship online. And then there’s the fault-finders and gossip-mongers and anti-Mormon mockers. Too often the rational, faith-filled voices are drown out by the complainers, the bandwagon-builders, and the Great and Spacious Building inhabitants.
Contrast the good academic scholarship necessary for a dissertation with the flashy memes and ideas gone viral on the internet among members (and past members) of the Church. Rumors abound, offenses are cherished, even whole websites and blogs are marketed for their “you gotta be kidding!” reaction. And if you post your comments anonymously, your opinion can be just as scurrilous and rude as the next poster.
So where do you turn for the reliable answers, the thoughtful posts, and the scholarly responses?
If you look long enough (sometimes it’s hard to find these among all the clutter of anti-Mormon stuff), you will find fact-checkers like FairMormon.org. The only problem with their site, as far as I can see, is it is calm, patient, and thorough – no roll-your-eyes response to the ridiculous “scholarship” found in the “Letter to a CES Director” or in Grant Palmer’s “Golden Pot” theory.
There are more aggressive defenders of the faith, like the online Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scriptures publication (www.mormoninterpreter.com). And although the former FARMS (Now BYU’s Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, found at mi.byu.edu) used to publish some good apologetics, their recent works continue to be reputable and scholarly. In addition, BYU Studies (https://byustudies.byu.edu) has peer-reviewed articles (a characteristic of good scholarship).
Of course there’s also good scholarship in the personal blogs of some of the contributing members of the aforementioned groups. For example, if you want scholarly push-back from some of the egregious errors and inflammatory statements made by recent “Mormon experts,” (a questionable soubriquet), I found these postings to be well-researched:
- Stephen Smoot shows us Runnells has not been upfront about his purposes for his “Letter” and his cry of “foul” when he was excommunicated: http://www.plonialmonimormon.com/2016/02/ces-letter-author-jeremy-runnells-to.html
- Similarly, an anonymous blogger hosted a great site showing former member John Dehlin’s duplicity when he was trying to get sympathy for his own apostasy:https://dearjohndehlin.wordpress.com/
- My personal favorite is J. Max Wilson’s weblog “Sixteen Small Stones” (https://www.sixteensmallstones.org/) in which he not only comments on past conference talks (a great resource), but calls out the recent agitators against LDS doctrine with good logic and scholarly references.
One important caveat—the expertise of religious matters, commendably found in good scholarship and reliable provenance of ideas, must ultimately rely on the Spirit. President Spencer W. Kimball stated in a BYU Devotional (Fall 1977):
“Expertise in religion comes from personal righteousness and from revelation.”
So in the end, our ideas—from trusted and reliable sources, including personal righteousness and revelation—should be a good antidote against the onslaught of craziness we are seeing on social media. When I read the inflammatory postings about the Church and its history or doctrines, I continue to ask, what is the provenance of these ideas? What are you willing to trust?
And if you find yourself caught up in the emotion of the idea, maybe a little fact-checking into an idea’s provenance might not be unwise.
Then Sings My Soul 