Posted by:
RPackham
(
)
Date: August 19, 2016 06:32PM
I think your response is a good one.
Your father's argument is a classic example of fallacious appeals, the fallacy of appeal to authority and the fallacy of appeal to popularity.
There are two possible explanations about the public stance of the general authorities:
- They truly do believe it
- They really don't believe it, but they believe it is for the members' benefit that they say that they do believe it
If it's the first, then they are stupid, since the evidence against the church is available to them, as it is to the many members who have decided to leave. If they have not examined the evidence, then they are no respecters of truth, and unworthy of someone claiming to be a messenger from God.
If it's the second, then they are arrogant liars and deceivers.
It's got to be one or the other.
One must also not assume that all the general authorities are one or the other (stupid or deceitful). Some may fall in one category, others not.
Here's my theory (and it's only a theory - there is no way to test it that I can think of):
Every Mormon, whether a convert or born in the church, starts out by accepting Mormonism as true. That is the basic premise: "The church is true. Joseph Smith was a prophet." Therefore, anything that contradicts or casts doubt on the basic premise must be false, and there is probably a good explanation for why it doesn't look false (whether you can find the explanation or not). Those who have a strong testimony of the truth of the Mormon gospel naturally advance in the church. Nobody advances, of course, if they express doubts or if they ask too many questions. Every general authority in the history of the church (except for the very few who were excommunicated or who apostatized) has achieved that distinction by strengthening and continually bearing his testimony and the testimony of others.
What happens, then, when some embarrassing historical fact or doctrinal contradiction surfaces? The general authorities are not historians, nor are they theologians (except in the most amateur sense of the word), nor are they scientists. So how does an apostle or other GA deal with the assertions about the DNA evidence showing that the Indians are not Israelites? He turns it over to a scientist at BYU and asks HIM to deal with it. Now, put yourself in the position of that BYU scientist. Are you going to tell the president of the church that the Book of Mormon is wrong about the origin of the American Indians? Of course not - you would lose your job, your temple recommend, your church membership, and probably your wife. So, you wrack your brain to come up with some spin on the evidence that the GA will like. And you finally come up with some off-the-wall pro-Mormon explanation and write a very long report, with dozens or hundreds of footnotes. The GA doesn't read through the entire report. He doesn't have the time. All he's interested in is the conclusion, so he reads that, and is relieved that everything is OK, his testimony is strengthened, and he can state publicly, in all good conscience, that the DNA is not a problem for the Book of Mormon because a top scientist at BYU has told him so.
Obviously the leaders think that they are receiving revelation. They believe that firmly, because by definition they are SUPPOSED to receive revelation. So they interpret any idea, any hunch, any flash of imagination as revelation from God. Every such idea or hunch, then, confirms their belief that they are receiving revelation.
They studiously avoid asking embarrassing questions of themselves or of their colleagues, because they know that that is the first step to apostasy, and the sign of a weak testimony. And they firmly believe that their primary job is to be a model for the members of the church. (Gordon Hinckley even stated that in a public interview, saying nothing about receiving "revelation.") They are busy running the organization. They believe in the advice that they give to doubting members: Surely there is a suitable answer somewhere, but it is not necessary for your salvation - all our questions and puzzlements will be satisfied in the next life. Meanwhile, pray, study the scriptures, and attend to your callings.
Remember what happened when B. H. Roberts (a general authority and assistant church historian) presented to the Apostles his disturbing study about the Book of Mormon, how it appeared to be a poor fiction, authored by Joseph Smith, based largely on Ethan Smith's book "View of the Hebrews"? The apostles' response was to bear their testimonies that they knew the Book of Mormon was true. They never dealt with the problems that Roberts raised.
So, my guess is that the leaders really believe it because they refuse to acknowledge or investigate any evidence to the contrary with an open mind.. Remember all the courtiers and servants in "The Emperor's New Clothes"? They all could see that the boss was naked, but to say so would mean that they were "unworthy." And nobody ELSE failed to see the beautiful clothes. So they MUST be there.
That does not excuse them morally, of course. In the law, for example, you are responsible for what you know but ALSO for what you should know after exercising "due diligence" to find out the truth.
Lying and liars are a complex phenomenon. Once a liar gets good at it, he doesn't think of it as lying any more, especially if people believe him. And actually, the fact that some people DO believe the liar tends to persuade the liar to think that what he is saying is true, because other people acknowledge it as true. This was the attitude of Mark Hofmann, who produced forged historical documents and sold them to the church and to antique dealers. His attitude was that if he presented a forgery to the experts and they certified it as genuine, then it WAS genuine.
Remember that great line from the movie spoof of Mormonism, "Plan 10 from Outer Space":
"Just because he made it up doesn't mean it isn't true."