In light of the controversy over the Baja model, and the ongoing M2C and SITH models, I'm posting here a chapter from my book The Rational Restoration, which explains the FAITH model and offers a simple application.
_____
This chapter applies the
FAITH model by presenting a simplified method of analysis to clarify different
beliefs.
Two basic narratives have arisen about the truth claims made by Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery regarding the foundational events of the Restoration. These truth claims offer a binary choice.
|
(i) The truth claims demonstrated divine intervention, OR (ii) The truth claims were not divine because they were (a) unproven and delusional or deceitful claims that have
naturalistic explanations or (b) the product of sinister supernatural influences. |
Within category (i),
believers accept all or some of what Joseph and Oliver taught, leaving them
free to entertain a range of narratives depending on how closely they adhere to
what Joseph and Oliver taught.
Within category (ii), nonbelievers accept none of the truth claims made by Joseph and Oliver, and they object on either naturalistic or supernatural grounds.
|
Relative belief in
what Joseph and Oliver claimed |
||
|
All |
Some |
None |
|
Believe all of what Joseph and Oliver claimed. |
Believe some, but not all, of what Joseph and Oliver
claimed. |
Believe none of what Joseph and Oliver claimed. |
Advocates of each narrative can find historical evidence to support their respective interpretations. Everyone is looking at the same facts, but then people diverge based on assumptions, inferences and theories.
For example, consider this post from well-known critic:
The leaders of the Mormon church continue to blame the youth leaving on them having 'anti-Christ' teachings when in reality it's because the youth are not as afraid of looking at information about the LDS church as older generations are... and they're finding out it's not true.
When we run this post through the FAITH model, we can quickly isolate facts from assumptions, inferences, and theories. There are no clear facts stated—even though the post claims it is giving us facts. When it says “in reality,” that’s a rhetorical opinion, not a fact.
Is it a fact that youth “are not as afraid” as older generations?
Aside from the overgeneralization,
the substance of the claim is dubious. To the youth, everything is new under
the sun. They’re naturally curious and uninformed. Many in the older generation
have seen and heard the critical narratives so many times that they don’t feel
a need to rehash them yet again. They may be “weary” rather than “afraid.” Labeling
them as “afraid” is pejorative and argumentative, not factual.
Besides, today every
generation has equal access to the Internet and thus the same information.
When the post says the
youth are “looking at information about the LDS church,” information can be
supportive or critical. Presumably people are looking at both categories. And
if so, which category are they “finding out” is “not true” here?
The author, as a
critic, presumably wants readers to infer that young people are “looking at”
critical information and “finding out” the church’s truth claims are “not
true.” That would be his framing.
But what he actually
wrote supports the opposite conclusion; i.e., that the youth are looking at the
information the author promotes and are finding out that his critical
information is not true. That would be my framing.
We start with the identical facts, but after
applying our assumptions, inferences, etc., we reach completely opposite
conclusions or hypotheses.
When viewed with that degree of clarity, charity, and
understanding, there is no incentive to contend about our differences. We can understand exactly how we reached our respective conclusions (hypotheses) and proceed from there. We feel no compulsion to convert, convince, or compel because we realize we are not disagreeing about fact, but about opinion.
_____
Because we start with a focus on issues involving the Restoration, particularly those related to the keystone of our religion (the origin and setting of the Book of Mormon), we've identified three broad categories of people who have engaged with these issues.
In doing so, we recognize everyone is
different. These categories serve as analytical tools only. Any individual may
find affinity with any group on a given specific topic.
The objective is to
seek greater understanding by enabling side-by-side comparison. Comparisons
facilitate greater clarity and charity.
Important: the tool does not impose a value judgment on which approach is better or worse, but it assists others who assess a particular issue to make their own informed decisions.
|
Under
the right circumstances—the alternatives are available for comparison side by
side, and the wording of the alternatives leaves nothing to the
imagination—people can think their way out of the fallacy. Steven Pinker[1] |
Clarity requires
isolation of facts, assumptions, inferences, theories, and hypotheses (the
FAITH model). The understanding process is nonjudgmental. If anyone brings factual errors to our attention, they will be promptly noted and appropriate
corrections made.
These are the three
broad categories, using terminology familiar to those involved with these
discussions. The groups are organized as a continuum, but there is no implied
preference for “All” just because A is the first letter in the alphabet.
The order could be
reversed just as easily.
|
Believe
what Joseph and Oliver claimed |
||
|
All |
Some |
None |
|
Believe all of what Joseph and Oliver claimed about the
origin and setting of the Book of Mormon |
Believe some, but not all, of what Joseph and Oliver
claimed about the origin and setting of the Book of Mormon |
Believe none of what Joseph and Oliver claimed about
the origin and setting of the Book of Mormon |
Each of these groups is overbroad. People who generally identify themselves within the description in one box may have a variety of views about how to interpret the teachings of Joseph and Oliver that puts them in one or two of the other boxes on some issues. But the classifications are useful for analytical and clarity purposes.
Application – Lucy Mack Smith
The all/some/none model can be applied to any historical evidence. In the following example, everyone agrees on the facts, but they divide into three categories because of their assumptions, inferences, and theories, which lead them to reach entirely different hypotheses (multiple working hypotheses). To repeat, obviously the all/some/none classification is a generalized summary. Any individual may have a different set of assumptions, inferences, etc.
Fact (an objective fact everyone agrees upon): Because we can all see the original document in the Joseph Smith Papers, everyone agrees that the document exists. We can all see that the handwriting is by Martha Jane Knowlton Coray and Howard Coray, who later reported they acted as scribes for Lucy’s dictation. Lucy Mack Smith wrote a letter to her son William, explaining that
People are often enquiring of me the particulars of Joseph’s getting the plates seeing the angels at first and many other thing which Joseph never wrote or published I have told over many things pertaining to these matters to different persons to gratify their curiosity indeed have almost destroyed my lungs giving these recitals to those who felt anxious to hear them I have now concluded to write down every particular as far as possible and if those who wish to read them will help me a little they can have it all in one piece to read at their leasure—[2]
With this historical background, presumably we can all agree
that Lucy dictated her history in 1844. That’s the easy part.
We can also agree to the fact that she reported that the first night he appeared to Joseph Smith, the divine messenger told Joseph that
the record is on a side hill on the Hill of Cumorah 3 miles from this place remove the Grass and moss and you will find a large flat stone.”[3]
People diverge over how to handle what Lucy reported; i.e., is her report factual or not? Did she hear this directly from Joseph or did she compose the exchange from her imagination? We can examine the typical assumptions, inferences, theories and hypotheses employed by three different categories of people, grouped according to their pre-existing beliefs about Cumorah.
|
Assumption |
||
|
All |
Some |
None |
|
Lucy was correct
because Cumorah is in New York. |
Lucy was mistaken
because Cumorah is not in New York. |
Lucy was mistaken
because Cumorah is imaginary. |
|
Inferences and interpretations |
||
|
All |
Some |
None |
|
We infer that Lucy
heard this directly from Joseph Smith, that Joseph heard it correctly in the
first place, and that Lucy accurately reported what Joseph told her. The
words speak for themselves; i.e., Moroni identified the hill where the plates were
deposited as Cumorah. |
This is not a
direct quotation so we infer Lucy paraphrased what she heard or added
anachronistic details years after the fact. She said “hill of Cumorah”
which is not the same as the Hill Cumorah, so we interpret it to mean a hill
“like” Cumorah, reminiscent of Cumorah, etc. |
We infer that Lucy probably
wanted to believe it, and wanted others to believe it, because she naturally
trusted her own son. But there’s nothing believable about this account
because resurrected beings don’t come to earth to convey messages. |
|
Theory/explanation |
||
|
All |
Some |
None |
|
Because Lucy was
generally a reliable witness, there is no reason to doubt her claim in this
case. Even though Lucy related this 20 years after the fact, she had a good
memory and she repeated the account many times during the lifetime of Joseph
Smith and he never corrected or contradicted her. Lucy related a similar
account about Cumorah that took place about 3 years later. |
Although Lucy was
generally a reliable witness, she was not in all cases. Lucy related this 20
years after the fact so she must have heard the Cumorah theory from someone
other than Joseph Smith, but even if she heard it from Joseph, Joseph was
speculating along with Oliver Cowdery. |
Lucy was generally
a reliable witness, but at best, Lucy is relating hearsay (what Joseph told
her), so it’s not even admissible in court. Her belief in resurrected beings
doesn’t make her belief a reality. Besides, even scholars who believe the
Book of Mormon is “true” don’t accept what Lucy said here. |
|
Hypothesis |
||
|
All |
Some |
None |
|
The actual Hill
Cumorah is in western New York. |
The actual Hill
Cumorah is in southern Mexico or somewhere else. |
Any hill Cumorah is
fictional, whether it’s in New York or anywhere else. |
Predictably, the concluding hypothesis confirms the beginning assumption held by each of the three groups.
As we discussed previously, this is called “confirmation bias,” defined as a cognitive bias “that results from the tendency to process and analyze information in such a way that it supports one's preexisting ideas and convictions.”[4]
But that doesn’t matter because the FAITH model is not designed to produce a convergence of ideas. Instead, it solves for clarity, charity and understanding.
To review:
Clarity. The FAITH model enables everyone to see exactly what are
the assumptions, inferences and theories which lead to the hypothesis or
conclusion. Often, it clarifies these elements for the proponent of a
particular hypothesis as well.
With the “ancestry” of each hypothesis clearly spelled out,
everyone can understand alternative working hypotheses. People can make
informed choices without the confusion that typically results from argument and
contention.
Charity. The FAITH model also promotes charity, meaning we assume everyone is acting in good faith and is sincere. Instead of
speculating about possible ulterior motives, everyone can see exactly how
others reached their conclusions.
Understanding. The FAITH model brings people together
based on mutual understanding and respect without requiring agreement,
adherence, or conformity to one particular outcome.
This approach is far beyond merely agreeing to disagree. Once
people understand one another with clarity and charity, we can all work
together without underlying suspicions, distrust, or animosity; i.e., we can
have “no more contention.”
And we can work together for the common good despite (or even because of) our different worldviews.
[1]
Rationality at 584
No comments:
Post a Comment