President Dieter F. Uchtdorf gave a keynote address at the church history symposium last week, centered around the topic of being patient with contradictory information.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/lifestyle/57647487-80/church-history-lds-uchtdorf.html.csp

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865598190/Church-History-Symposium-examines-Mormonisms-global-reach.html

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-history-scholars-meet-in-utah-to-discuss-the-global-reach-of-mormonism

In essence, his argument goes like this:

The Leaf is Not The Tree – whenever we encounter new information that seems to contradict a long-held belief of gospel doctrine or church history, rather than draw firm conclusions that accommodate the new information, we should remain hopeful that yet undisclosed information will soon arrive to explain the contradiction.

This cautionary stance is probably prudent in almost any information quest. I prefer the term “Provisional Stance” as explained by Michael Schermer in his books, where our approach to new information should be both guarded and open, which is precisely what Uchtdorf is suggesting… at least that is how TBM’s interpret the message.

So, I think it is important to look at the broader picture of what this “Provisional Stance” tells us about LDS doctrine and history, and how Uchtdorf’s plea has it exactly backwards.
Many of you are familiar with the B. H. Roberts indepth study of the authorship problems of the book of Mormon in 1912; Roberts presented his findings, disturbing as they were, to the top quorums of the church; the response was exactly the same as Uchtdor’s advice – we must be patient until new information surfaces that explains these disturbing implications.

Fast forward to 1970, and we have Hugh B. Brown working with Hugh Nibley and Egyptologist to look into the newly obtained Egyptian papyri known to be the source of the Book of Abraham. The clear implication was that the “translation” was not even remotely connected to the content of the papyri; Hugh B. Brown made an appeal to the top quorums to remove the Book of Abraham from the standard works and abandon doctrines closely tied the book; the response was exactly the same as Uchtdorf’s advice – we must be patient until new information surfaces that explains these disturbing implications.

Then we have the surfacing of the Kinderhook plates, tested in 1985 and proving they were clearly a hoax, the emergence of new information about polygamy, and the ever growing lack of evidence for anything related to the historicity of the Book of Mormon. As the counter evidence grows, the consistent response is exactly the same as Uchtdorf’s recent appeal – be patient until new information arises to explain all of the contradictions and disturbing implications.

This official stance of patience amidst mounting contradictory information; of being open to new information but guarded in our response to that information, both explains how the top quorums can remain ardent believers AND absorb massive amounts of counter evidence to their faith claims. If they are truly convinced that time will vindicate them, then it does not matter how convincing the new information becomes.

What they are not acknowledging, and what they need to see before any progress can be made, is that time has done exactly the opposite. Time has only and consistently vindicated the counter information. New information continues to build up AGAINST the faithful stance. Despite thousands of man-hours of research and apologetics, there is no NEW information that “resolves” the earliest occurrences of emerging contradictions.

This is why Schermer’s concept of “Provisional Stance” works and Uchtdorf’s “Cautionary Stance” does not. The provisional stance allows for new information, once confirmed, to supplant prior firmly held beliefs with new adjusted beliefs about the real world. Uchtdorf’s “Patience but Open” advice has nowhere to go; one must remain patient forever, denying the mounting evidence in perpetuity. Where is there room for progress in Uchtdorf’s stance?

We have now had over one hundred years of “Let’s wait upon the Lord to bring to light the information that will resolve these inconsistencies and contradictions,” and during that time, new information HAS come to light to further confirm those same contradictions. Is it just a matter of more patience for more time? At what point to we look at the mounting evidence and say “the further light has come, and it confirms that we were wrong?”

I would think the top quorums would see the irrationality of their “Patient but Open” stance and realize that the truth has been revealed. The truth is that they are part of a fraud, and it is time to acknowledge that their patience has already borne its natural fruit. Further patience is delusional.

Great post, very insightful.

They're losing ground and they know it. They know there are tough issues and they know there aren't any good answers. Members just need to defer any rash decision and just wait it out. But you're right, HOW LONG do we have to wait?

I didn't know Hugh Brown petitioned the top 15 to remove the BoA from the scriptures, can you provide a reference for this?

Thomas Ferguson claims that Hugh B. Brown told him he tried to get the top quorums to agree to drop the Book of Abraham, but they were not prepared to abandon all of the doctrine that originated in that book.

Most of my source comes from:

http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no91.htm

And more about Ferguson here: http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no69.htm


but others here can add to this reference.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/10/2014 04:39PM by saul.

But kristalmighty if you toss out the BoA, you toss out everything, huh?

Kolob
Black priesthood ban
Turning into a gawd
Heaven's MLM plan

That's what makes Mormonism mormonism!


.......wish they had........

+1000

They can't toss it out. The cards will come tumbling down.

The winds came down and the floods came up, and the church built on lies washed away..
(I'm hoping someone else remembers that primary song too!)

I remember that song! Taught it to my primary classes for years. I must say I like your version better! :)

msp Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The winds came down and the floods came up, and
> the church built on lies washed away..
> (I'm hoping someone else remembers that primary
> song too!)

LDS Inc. co-opted the song. The Protestants sang it for decades before it made its way into LDS use.

is there a copy of Uch's whole speech? iam already getting the "was taken out of context" defense.

Becuase they "know" that a GA would never say anything that may even remotely cause questions. Remember, mormons are gifted at being witnesses of thigs they never saw.

This is very well written. I wish I had the balls to post this on FB for my TBM friends and family to see. I want them to think about whether they really want to suspend judgement in perpetuity and what the implications would be for their own understanding of truth. In time.

Meanwhile, it is unfortunate that Uchtdorf's line of reasoning works very well on TBMs from my observation. Really, 100% of TBMs I converse with on TSCC truth claims come back to something like Uchtdorf's line of reasoning.

Feels like a social psychology researched approach that the church is using to keep people believing.

The Leaf is not the tree- but the leaf contains significant patterns that identify which tree it is from.

If all the leaves are rotting, what does that probably say about the tree?

When all the leaves fall, the tree is dead.

Spring time for atheists and science too. Winter for Mormons and Clears.

Don't be stupid, be a smarty, come and join the exmo party.

Yeah but they found some iron sword in Jerusalem....so I guess all is proven

The church's leaders know that no more information will be forthcoming that will "prove" the church to be true. When they say things like "Let's wait upon the Lord to reveal this" blah blah blah, they are really just begging members to keep believing despite the lack of evidence. In reality, that's about the only tactic they can use. I imagine that they will continue to use that tactic until so many people leave the church that they will be forced to come up with something else.

Who knows, maybe this Tom Phillips fraud case will force them to change their arguments soon.

What if their paradigm is more simple?

Say, for example, that they have a conviction of the truthfulness of the church based entirely upon the feelings of comfort and wholeness they receive when reading scriptures or pondering doctrine (remember what it felt like before you snapped out of it?).

If this is the case, then their perspective would be something like "It is true, therefore there must be an explanation for all of this contradictory information..."

Combine this with what must be years of "confirmatory feedback" where their peers parrot back the faithful rhetoric and followers praise them for their inspired words (again, remember how it felt before?... I do)

What you get as a result of the above is actual conviction of belief paired with delayed doubt. You know it is true, but cannot explain why all this external evidence seems to be pointing in the other direction. The only logical course is to delay action until further proof arrives.

This is their paradigm. I have seen enough and spoken to enough of them to understand that they actually DO NOT know, or even have a vague notion that this is not utterly, completely, and vitally true.

This paradigm explains their behavior better than any "conspiracy" notion that they know but cannot bring themselves to act in some way.

"You know it is true, but cannot explain why all this external evidence seems to be pointing in the other direction. The only logical course is to delay action until further proof arrives."

That attitude is why Mark Twain said "Faith is believing something you know ain't true."

"This is their paradigm. I have seen enough and spoken to enough of them to understand that they actually DO NOT know, or even have a vague notion that this is not utterly, completely, and vitally true."

Of course that's their paradigm. As former FAIR apologist Kerry Shirts wrote here a few weeks ago, believers operate the opposite of the scientific method: they first decide what is true according to their faith and feelings, then they bend, force-fit, or ignore any evidence which contradicts their beliefs, rather than accepting the obvious and changing their lives accordingly. A TBM's goal isn't to discover truth; it's to do whatever they intellectually have to do to maintain status quo.

But what TBMs don't think about is that believers in other dubious premises, such as UFOs and Bigfoot for example, operate with the same mindset as TBMs do.

This 'indefinite continuation of belief no matter what' ploy is highly disingenuous and illogical. This is best evidenced by reversing the roles and applying the exact same sentiment to investigators who are being coerced to leave the religion of their upbringing.

If their own religious leaders proposed the same continuation of belief rhetoric, you can bet the missionaries would be saying things that were the polar opposite of Uchtdorf's advice.

Using Dieter's logic, we could conclude that the world is flat.

True, there is some evidence which seems to show that the world is round, but we just need to hang in there and be patient. Some evidence may still be forthcoming that proves that the world is flat.

I'm just looking forward to all that transparency that Dieter promised. Like their financial statements, tithing income, business revenue, salaries and perks, actual membership stats, activity rates etc. Can't wait!

I love these quotes. They both seem to fit here:

> Belief achieved in the absence of facts is faith. Belief IN SPITE of facts is delusion. Ignoring facts is willful ignorance.


> The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth – persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.

I like the quote,

" Belief achieved in the absence of facts is faith. Belief IN SPITE of facts is delusion. Ignoring facts is willful ignorance."

Do you have a reference for it?

"The Leaf is Not The Tree – whenever we encounter new information that seems to contradict a long-held belief of gospel doctrine or church history, rather than draw firm conclusions that accommodate the new information, we should remain hopeful that yet undisclosed information will soon arrive to explain the contradiction."

To me, Udork is pretty much saying "Even though the bank told you the checks we write you in exchange for having faith in us have bounced, just you wait. Someday you will be able to cash them all...and here is another to add to the pile for when that great day happens"

It seems to me the time for the "“Provisional Stance” was 1820-1844 or every time LDS prophets have spoken since. Why haven't people exercised a little 'wait and see' in those cases? Instead the believing have repeatedly adopted whatever is said with reckless abandon. I guess provisional stance is being luke warm or faithless.

Fully and unequivocally embracing what the Church sells and THEN adopting the cautionary stance beyond that point is how the Church has repeatedly done it. Calling everything revelation from God requires they defend their bad ideas way beyond the point that it clearly becomes impractical. They did it with polygamy and the priesthood ban. Now they are being forced to do it with all of the crazy 19th century stuff J. Smith and his successors have said. But make make no mistake ...they're only going to give up the things that are pried from their clinched fists and only after it has become an embarrassment.

Apparently that's how God's plan of continuing revelation works...???

Uchtdorfs suggestions are a pathetic pile of crap. As discussed in detail above they (GAs) have known the history for a very long time and have withheld the information. Not only do they withhold the information they beat up on people for not paying tithes or towing the line, which is the really nasty part.

In my view, LDS Inc is no different than the tobacco companies in that big tobacco knew and even developed their own secret studies showing tobacco causes cancer. They also hired people to blur the lines and create uncertainty where none existed to avoid regulation and law suits. It is hard to fight a liar, but eventaully big tobacco was caught and had to pay up.

Uchtdorft is playing exactly the same game. He knows its BS, FAIR knows its BS, but they try and create doubt and uncertanty to keep the $ flowing. Its all about the 15 and their ego. I don't think we should tolerate or excuse this nasty behavior.

This analysis is based on information in the book Merchants of Doubt by Namoi Orsekes about the tobacco companies and conservative groups that fight regualtion related to climtae change.

LDS Inc.,sure seems to fit this pattern and is a "Merchant of Doubt". -Doubt your doubts- He might as well say "keep lighting up, because its all true and LDS Inc isn't a cult (carcinogenic)."

Last thing, I am also supposed to doubt my doubts when it comes to science ideas that complete refute LDS doctrine? Yes, there was a flood and someday (when I die) I will see the "truth." This won't and can't fly under any scenario proposed by Ucdorf.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/11/2014 12:24PM by perky.