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.