Some Thoughts About Difficult Questions

Tyler Chadwick has a really interesting series on the way LDS arts do or do not face the difficult questions arising from the paradoxical nature of LDS doctrine. I hope that's a sufficiently accurate explanation for my purposes here. Correct me if I'm mischaracterizing you, Tyler. The series starts here on A Motley Vision.

Tyler is a really intelligent writer and I have to think hard to keep up with him, and all that hard thinking has put this near the front of my mind. Maybe that's why when I read Theric Jepson's svithe about (in an esoteric way) Proposition 8, I got interested and started looking up how other members of the church online were reacting to this measure. That brought me back to Tyler's ideas.

This post is not supposed to be a rehash of anybody else's work and I'm not talking about Mormon literature. What I'm attempting to deal with is why Mormons themselves have such a hard time with some of these tough questions.

For those not aware, Proposition 8 is a California ballot initiative that would amend the state's constitution to make homosexual marriage illegal. I've read articles, posts, and comments from several members of the Church, most of whom have essentially apostatized over this issue. The problem centers around the Church's official support of this and similar measures, which one person said was the beginning of his realization that "all religion is bunk." Another, a man who is married to a woman, has children, and is openly gay but doesn't practice his "preferences," said that he "knows" that the prophet is only speaking as a man (rather than the Lord's mouthpiece) on this issue because he "knows" that God wouldn't take a political position that encourages discrimination against his children. In fairness, this man was thoughtful and sincere, and deserves respect. I intend nothing contrary by quoting him.

Certain others were not so thoughtful, doing everything from accusing the prophets of betraying their Christianity to simply making a mistake. They apparently think the prophets intend to excuse themselves by claiming to be speaking "as men" when the measure fails.

I don't need to say any more about the details of the arguments because that's not the main point of this post. Before I go any further, however, I have to say something to Theric: good job. I admire you.

Getting to the point, I think these comments from struggling and former Latter-day Saints demonstrate some of the problems with not learning how to face difficult issues. I don't know the individual people involved here, so I'm going to be largely generalizing from here on out based on my own observations.

First problem: Difficult questions have a way of sneaking up on us. If we're not used to dealing with them, our reaction is likely to be less than ideal. For example, the person who made the "bunk" comment said he was in an Elders' Quorum Presidency when he started to doubt the brethren. This man probably had a testimony of the gospel and probably did a lot of good. However, it is not difficult for me to imagine that such a person had never (or rarely) had to personally confront an issue that directly challenged his faith. When one came up, he fell upon the philosophies of the world and his own human understanding to make sense of the Lord's doings. He consulted with others, but I would question (based on his article) whether he ever prayed about it or turned to the scriptures. We repeatedly see this as a major precursor to apostasy. Regardless of personal feelings or apparently sound reasoning, the voice of the Spirit is the sure guide.

Second problem: The wicked take the truth to be hard. I'm not talking about the unequivocally evil person here. I'm talking about the one who hears a teaching that casts his own behavior into the light and shows it to be wrong. This should happen to all of us at some point in our lives if we're seeking truth and are humble and honest with ourselves. The problem is, if we have no practice in working through tough questions in the light of faith, then how will we react when our perception of our own righteousness is on the line? Can we safely cling to principles we know to be true without the skills to separate them from our own prejudices? The gay man mentioned above describes long years of trying to counsel with Priesthood leaders to overcome his temptations and change his nature. He believes the gospel with all his heart and does not succumb to the enticements in question, but seems to have given up trying to change. He's tried to bear his cross with faith, and I won't be surprised if he comes out victorious in the end.

Third problem: Truth is reason. This is one of my favorite phrases from a hymn. I believe it. We can use correct reasoning to discover truth, but we need to know the laws of reason. I'm not saying that we all have to memorize long lists of logical fallacies and be able to name them on sight, but we need to learn enough to know when our thoughts are being led astray. Take the example of the man who called the Church leadership hypocritical for opposing Proposition 8 on moral grounds, but not the Iraq war. Wow. That's a non-sequitur if ever I saw one. It assumes that his perception of morality is absolutely correct and that that Church leaders' attitudes about the war were consciously formed contrary to that morality, which they also hold. It also assumes that morality is universally definable for all people - or at least all Mormons. You could put a few other names to it too, but the point is that any person exercised in reason should be able to see that this is a logical leap. This person found the leadership of the Church going against his personal view and responded poorly. He typifies the person who follows a belief system because it gels with his ideas, not because he believes it to be true of itself. We need to learn to reason out ideas and discover truth. This also helps us to see the flaws in our own thinking. This leads me to the final dilemma we are bound to encounter with difficult questions.

Fourth problem: Paradox. Eventually, there will come a time when we reach two sound, true, logical conclusions that seem disharmonious, contradictory, or somehow in tension with each other. The key is to recognize that truth is bound to opposition. This opposition is not the same as that which exists between good and evil. Yes, there is a falsehood in opposition to every truth, but there is also a paradoxical, but equally true principle. All truth is found in paradox. To show what I mean, think about godhood, the fall, and physics. God can overcome all evil. He is more powerful. Light is greater than darkness. In Him is no evil. How then can it be possible that there must be opposition in all things? If the only opposition is between good and evil, is there opposition in God? And how is it that the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and the fruit of the tree of life are essential to our becoming like Him? We can't be godlike without knowledge. Neither can we without immortality. Yet while the effects of one fruit persisted, the other was forbidden. When the other was obtained, the effects of the first ceased, and it became prohibited. Partaking of one of two essential fruits simultaneously removed man from God, and made him more like God. In other words, as Lehi said, the fruits were in opposition to each other, but neither one was evil. Both were essential to God's purposes.

Newton hit on the answer. He theorized that every action has an equal an opposite reaction. In other words, the natural forces at play in the universe interact (in part) through the principle of opposition. We get this easily when we speak of physics. We also seem to understand it about justice and mercy, thanks to Alma et al. I believe that this is also the case with truth. Two principles can be equally true and yet in tension. It is a tension, like that on the surface of water, that holds things together rather than tearing them apart. This tension (like many in the natural world) is born of the opposition between inertia and gravity - two apparently true principles that ensure balance by working "against" each other. In other words, the tension makes things work right.

When difficult questions arise, we often have to deal with paradox. The adversary of truth loves to cast one principle against another, framing them in a way that makes them appear false. He also loves to give us only one half of the equation. He tempted Adam and Eve with knowledge and promises of godliness, neglecting to mention the effects of their choice on life. I wonder if we are in such a different boat? We live in a dispensation in which knowledge is promised us again: this time not by Satan, but by God. We are also striving for eternal life. Do we sometimes feel that pursuing a deep knowledge will negatively impact our quest for life? Are we in a sort of reverse-eden in which we feel compelled to choose between one or the other, as at first? The way has been provided for us to obtain both, but it is fraught with paradox and difficult questions. It requires humility, reason, practice, and faith that God is wiser than are we.

I've talked about a lot of things here, and I guess I've spoken with a great deal of certainty. I hope I'm justified in doing so. The thing is that I believe what I'm saying. Do I have all the answers? Not even close. But I'm not afraid to face the questions.