Mormon Speculation

This post comes from a comment I wrote on Times & Seasons, an LDS blog. The subject was on the perpetuation of LDS urban legends and speculation, such as the recently skewered one about pioneers bowing at the feet of those who lived at the time of President Hinckley. The author argues basically for restraint in our stating what we think is a truth. I couldn't agree more.

Ardis,

Great post. I’ve read many of the comments as well and I’d rather address the original post than any of the reactions.

"Scientific Uncertainty" is a fundamental principle of rational decision-making. What we can be sure of in any production of science, history, or rhetoric is that there will be another side of the coin, an opposing argument, a different interpretation. We are interpretive creatures. We do like to create assertions and develop arguments to "prove" the truth of those assertions, but in the end our assertions are based on our interpretation of facts, sensory experience, or otherwise. You’re right on when you posit a wiser, more conservative approach to fact-finding.

Socrates spoke volumes when he said "True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing". I think there are things to know- we don’t know nothing whatsoever, but such a saying ought to cause us to glance at our references- heuristics, schemas, frames of reference, citations, paradigms, what have you. For me, credibility comes from a subjective approach. Objectivity is necessary, but reference to one’s perspective must be the foundation for such an approach as it guides one’s objectivity. Even then, uncertainty exists because we cannot fully take on another’s perspective (Joseph Smith said "No man knows my history."), and we cannot form such a thing into just the right words so that there will be no subjective interpretation of the words.

This raises a more important question. What can we know and how can we know it? Knowing the Gospel is true is something God promises that we can know. That knowledge is conveyed through spiritual manifestations. These "manifestations" sometimes get us into trouble. When I hear about us being Generals and having pioneers bow down, I just get all misty and warm inside. Who’s to say that’s not a manifestation and confirmation of truth. Well, hopefully myself.

This does not destroy our art of rhetoric and debate. We are welcome to assert and argue, but a wise person will not stand by his assertions with a figurative bomb strapped to his chest yelling "me or you, baby!" Persuasion is an art, just as being persuaded is an art, though more difficult to master.

In the end, the wise man can say, "I don’t know" and in the Church, we can say, "The idea of me being a General has no bearing on my identity as a member here and now. I still have so much to do in so little time." I try to live by a philosophy of preparing myself today for opportunities I don’t know about tomorrow. I live in the now. This takes some distrust of such premonitions and speculation. I find it quite liberating. In the Church context, hopefully we can focus on our simple testimonies of being children of God and members of the church, and fulfill our duties today.

Again, great post. I agree.

For those Interested...

In political philosophy:

I've been studying political philosophies lately because of what I perceive as gross misrepresentations in the terms "conservative" and "liberal". Basically, I think people like to call opposing opinions one or the other, depending on their own opinion of course. And so very often, our understandings of each side of the spectrum neglects the opportunity for laudable "middle" opinioning. I think this is more a form of ignorance than anything as individual's opinions on issues never fall exactly in the same place on the continuum of underlying political philosophy anyway. An easy example is hearing someone's opinion on immigration and agreeing, but then seeking to add or subtract something. It's already not the same opinion. Personally, I see merits in many philosophies and lean towards some more than others. As well, I see that there are serious flaws in the various philosophies. I found an article about some of this kind of thing:

Conservatives and Libertarians

from The American Scene - Main by Jim Manzi

I am a conservative, but consider myself to be very close to a small-l libertarian. Whatever the theoretical differences between these viewpoints, I think that in contemporary America two practical distinctions are fundamental. The first relates to the limits, and the second to the purpose, of libertarian policies.

Bill Buckley got to the essence of the first distinction 25 years ago in an interview with Reason magazine in which he said that he “shares about 90 percent of the views of most libertarians”:

Now if, for instance, a society feels that its attachment to that society is substantially vitiated in virtue of the toleration, let’s say, of a movie based on a comedy treatment of Dachau, it tends to lose self-esteem. And to the extent that it loses self-esteem, it stands in danger of reducing that which is its principal resource in matters of emergency. An America that hates itself cannot possibly defend itself against the Soviet Union or anybody else.

…I’m talking about morale. A morale is not the kind of stuff you see at a football game. I’m talking about a morale in the sense of urging you or me voluntarily to make sacrifices for the survival of something we cherish. Now if we don’t cherish it, then we’re not disposed to make any sacrifices.

The Soviet Union no longer exists, but enemies spring eternal, and if we alienate the affections of our own society we will be unable to defend ourselves. Until the world settles into an endless commercial peace, we must accept some limits on lifestyle and economic freedoms in order to retain the social cohesion necessary to meet inevitable external threats.

Unfortunately, I can’t rely on Bill Buckley’s eloquence to delineate what I believe to be the second key distinction, namely the Libertarian movement’s misapplication of libertarian ideas.

A central insight of Hayek, Popper & Co. was that our ignorance of human society runs deep. We need the experimentation of an open society not only because different people often want different things, but even more importantly because we’re never sure what works. I generally support, for example, a high degree of legal toleration of behavior that I find personally objectionable. I recognize, though, that others believe that what I think should be tolerated goes too far and threatens social cohesion, or what Buckley called morale. How do we resolve this impasse?

The best answer for conservatives or libertarians is federalism, or more precisely, subsidiarity – the principle that matters ought to be handled by the smallest competent authority. After all, a typical American lives in a state that is a huge political entity governing millions of people. As many decisions as possible ought to be made by counties, towns, neighborhoods and families (in which parents have significant coercive rights over children). In this way, not only can different preferences be met, but we can learn from experience how various social arrangements perform.

The characteristic error of contemporary conservatives in this regard has been a want of prudential judgment in trying to enforce too many social norms on a national basis. The characteristic error of contemporary Libertarianism has been the parallel failure to appreciate that a national rule of “no restrictions on non-coercive behavior” (which, admittedly, is something of a cartoon) contravenes a primary rationale for libertarianism. What if social conservatives are right and the wheels really will come off society in the long run if we don’t legally restrict various sexual behaviors? What if left-wing economists are right and it is better to have aggressive zoning laws that prohibit big-box retailers? I think both are mistaken, but I might be wrong. What if I’m right for some people for this moment in time, but wrong for others or wrong the same people ten years from now? The freedom to experiment needs to include freedom to experiment with different governmental (i.e., coercive) rules.

Now, obviously, there are limits to this. What if some states want to allow human chattel slavery? Well, we had a civil war to rule that out of bounds. Further, this imposes trade-offs on people who happen to live in some family, town or state that limits behavior in some way that they find odious, and must therefore move to some other location or be repressed. But this is a trade-off, not a tyranny.

We live in an imperfect world. Ironically, given the deeply anti-utopian orientation of Hayek and Popper, contemporary Libertarianism has veered off into increasingly utopian speculations disconnected from the practical realities that ought to animate it. At the same time, the Conservative movement has become increasingly ideological about enforcing moral norms. Both could learn a lot from re-engaging with one another.