I've thought about the LDS church quite a bit over the last ~five years. Of all of the interesting rabbit holes one could explore, one particular series of questions that I find to be particularly helpful in understanding the church ends with the question, "How important is the story of Joseph Smith?" It goes something like this:
How good is the Spirit as an arbiter of truth?
Members of the church (mostly) believe that science, logic, reason, and knowledge of all kinds are useful and (mostly) good; tools we can use to navigate the world and live better lives. But at the end of the day, the only way to know for sure if something is correct or not - the arbiter of truth - is ultimately only found through the Spirit.
Epistemology
Now this might make a scientist roll their eyes, but it also need not be at odds with the scientific method necessarily. After all, we encourage anyone to experiment with the word, seek it out for themselves, and ask questions. J. Reuben Clark said, "If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed." We can apply the scientific method of seeking truth to the Spirit through a hypothesis (e.g. The Book of Mormon is true), testing (i.e. pray, live it's teachings, await spiritual confirmation), analysis (i.e. the feeling I felt was not self-induced, therefore it must be from a higher, unseen power), and repetition (i.e. consistent results).
Nearly every believing member of the church has utilized this process to arrive at their conclusion that the church is true. And not just partially true or "true for me" but that it is true for everyone, True with a capital T, absolute truth, with doctrines and teachings literally given to humanity directly by God through his mouthpiece on Earth, the prophet.
The epistemological problem, of course, is that this process is the same for any other religion, with effectively the same results. For example, it is one thing to say that "I had a spiritual experience confirming that the Book of Mormon is true." Another is to say that "I have read every holy book from every religion, prayed to God, received confirmation through the Spirit that The Book of Mormon is at least more true than others, and I repeated this process across thousands of participants with different religious and cultural backgrounds, education levels, and ages in order to remove any bias, and they all confirmed my findings." One is an anecdote and the other is something resembling the scientific method.
To put a finer point on this, let’s say we burned every religious book ever written and everything about religion was forgotten. In, say, 1,000 odd years, they would reappear, but most likely totally different than they are now, based on the religious history of humanity so far. If we burned and forgot every science book, however, 1,000 years later they would most likely reappear pretty much just as they are. Chemistry, biology, and physics don’t change. Our understanding improves with time, but nothing will fundamentally change about physics 1,000 years from now. So the scientific method seems at least a useful, if not the most useful, tool that we have for determining truth.
Humility
So let's think about this idea by listing statements that (I think) everyone can agree on:
There are many religions
Some religions profess to have the absolute Truth while others do not
Of those claiming truth, all have members with deep conviction of the Truth
Most (if not all) of these members ultimately base their belief on personal spiritual experiences (e.g. feelings believed to come from God/Christ/Allah/the Spirit while singing/dancing/praying/studying/fasting/serving/blessing/dreaming/living).
Now I have always understood these facts and yet still believed that I am correct, or at least more correct, than members of other religions. How could I claim such a thing? Because the Spirit testifies of Truth, and anyone testifying of Christ will have part of, but not necessarily all of, the Truth. So while all others are good and partially True, my religion has the whole Truth, or the fullness of the Truth.
This begs the questions, "Do others feel the same way? Are their experiences just as strong as mine? Do they have equal conviction as me in what they believe?" And as I explored these questions, the answer turned out to be a resounding “yes”. Come to find out people share their “testimonies”/beliefs with equal (if not greater) fervor, conviction, and dedication as us. Many have a greater number of active members as us and were founded later (e.g. Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists). Many ask just as much from their members and they gladly comply. Many are equally convinced that they not only have the answers to happiness, but to all of life’s big questions.
Asked another way, “In what ways are my spiritual experiences special compared to those of other faiths?” Arrogantly, they just are. Humbly, I don’t know.
Calculation
Lastly, let’s look at an analogy of what an arbiter of truth should look like. If I put 2+2 into a calculator ten times and nine out of ten times it shows 4 and once it says 5, you could say, “9 out of 10, pretty good.” But of course this isn’t a pretty good calculator. It’s broken. Now, imagine if I get ten different answers each of the ten times. Then you wouldn’t even say that it’s a broken calculator. It’s not even a calculator at all, just a random number generator.
Unfortunately, feelings have historically been proven to be bad arbiters of truth. One only needs to look at any terrorist organization, cult, financial fraud, duped jury, or authoritarian government to see that people are easily manipulated using their feelings. So spiritual experiences may not be the greatest arbiter of Truth, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they are broken or worthless. Just that they are only one small piece of the Truth puzzle, not the only piece.
Which came first, Christ or Joseph?
Luckily, we believe that there is more to the restored gospel than just feelings. There is also information: scriptures, talks, manuals, discourses, and teachings galore for us to pour over the restored Truth. These all add pieces to the Truth puzzle.
All roads lead to Joseph
Where did all of this information come from? Quite simply put, either directly or by derivative, the answer is, "Joseph Smith." For example, all of the things that I do or believe that make me "Mormon" initially began with Joseph. Priesthood, ordinances, temples, the Book of Mormon, sealing power, miracles, celestial marriage (both plural and not), tithing, word of wisdom, missionary work, baptisms for the dead, and so forth. Even things that are more universal are done a specific way dictated by Joseph such as sacrament, baptism, fasting, prayer, and church hierarchy. Everything originates with Joseph. So the question that will help believers better understand unbelievers and vice versa is this, "Which came first, Christ or Joseph?" I'll illustrate what I mean with two similar but different statements:
Christ restored His church through Joseph Smith. Everything that we do and believe would have been restored regardless - Joseph was simply a vessel to bring it all to pass. Christ in the head of the church and calls the shots.
Joseph Smith said that he was called to restore Christ's church. Everything we do and believe was taught to us by Joseph, including the idea that Christ is the head of the church and calls the shots.
These are very similar statements but have wildly different implications. Under the first, Joseph is discounted to messenger boy. The restoration of the church is THE story and Joseph's story is merely tangential to it. Anything that he did wrong is chalked up as human imperfection and doesn't impact my testimony of the restoration. In fact, he could have murdered an entire village and I could still say, "prophets aren't perfect, but the gospel is still true." His story doesn’t mean much. I can go learn about church history if I’m interested, but ultimately it’s just for fun and doesn’t mean anything to my faith (read: conviction).
Under the second, everything that we know, believe, and live, from the premise of a restoration of Truth to the kind of underwear one should wear, were taught to us by Joseph. If his credibility is called into question, so are the truth claims of the church. If he lied about one thing, who’s to say he didn’t lie about something else. The story of Joseph Smith isn't tangential. The story of Joseph Smith IS the story of the church. They are inseparable.
I've heard people say "I know that Christ is the head of the church, so therefore Joseph was a prophet since he called him." This is in line with the first line of thinking. But it is also tautological: Joseph told me that Jesus was the head of the church, therefore he is - and if he's the head of the church, then Joseph is the prophet.
How important is the story of Joseph Smith?
I’ve tried pretty hard to desirability-bias myself into identifying with the first statement, but it simply doesn’t make any sense to me. Scientology without L. Ron Hubbard is a moot point. Christianity without Jesus doesn’t work. Islam without Muhammed doesn’t exist. Castaway without Tom Hanks is a video of a volleyball. Joseph didn’t play a “role” in the founding of the LDS church. He was its sole founder.
I’ve spoken with people that, when I suggest that the story of Joseph Smith is important, quickly respond with defensive comments such as “but what will that change” or “will it make you happier?” as if the idea that learning about my own faith’s history is controversial. But I understand why. There are a lot of implications riding on his story and it’s not hard to see where the line of dominos ends. So when you learn the less scrubbed-down version of Brother Joseph’s story, members like me start to discount the role that he played in the story of the Mormon church as a means of personal protection. I know because that’s exactly what I did, for a long time. With time, I had to accept the fact that his story matters. And it matters a lot.
コメント