Searching for Further Knowledge

The scriptures are replete with commandments to search out new truth. There is a finite amount of knowledge that is required before an individual can conquer the sins of this world. Joseph said, “Knowledge saves a man; and in the world of spirits no man can be exalted but by knowledge.” (Joseph Smith, TPJS, p. 357.) If we have not yet come back into God’s presence, it is because we have not yet attained this saving portion of knowledge. Working out our salvation, then, consists of exposing ourselves to new ideas and correctly evaluating their truthfulness.

Evaluating candidate truth is neither easy nor fast. Mormon said, “Search diligently in the light of Christ that ye may know good from evil” (Moroni 7:19). It is not a passive activity. Nor is it without casualty. New ideas can augment currently held beliefs (in the case of those that are correct), but they are equally likely to refute currently held beliefs (in the case of those that are not).

Obtain Evidence for What You Believe

Peter taught that we should “be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear.” (1 Peter 3:15) “A reason” implies that there are true facts, evidences, or observations supporting a given belief. Embracing a belief simply because someone else (a friend, family member, or church leader) maintains that belief is often not compelling enough to convert others or to maintain your own adherence during trials.¹ We should not believe something just because we were told it by our parents. We ought not assume something is true if it is repeated enough.² Those who are off the strait and narrow path far outnumber those who are on it. Truth always stands in the minority, and therefore will always be the exception to what is heard most often.

Instead, we should seek to follow the advice of men of God in the scriptures, who have invited us to “try the spirits.” “Trying the spirits” is an antiquated way to refer to an active search for truth. Salvation is not a passive activity. One must be anxiously engaged in discerning between truth and error if there is to be any hope for salvation.

We have no right to feel strongly about something for which we can not provide either charismatic or rational evidence. Feelings are insufficient. Emotion is not revelation. Instead, emotions tend to mirror prior held beliefs. When prior held beliefs are reinforced, the believer feels good. When prior held beliefs are contradicted, the believer feels bad (this is called cognitive dissonance). When truth evaluation is reduced to feelings, it becomes impossible to persuade, no matter how certain and clear the facts. Instead of debating the correctness or incorrectness of doctrine, which can be established through scriptural, rational, and historical investigation, one must defend against the feelings comments caused to those with status quo beliefs, whether or not those beliefs are true. The doctrine itself ceases to be the focus. Instead, the feelings of the believer become the focus. (See “Revelation.”) The natural man is an enemy to God; finding truth requires us to yield our emotive response—which is carnal—to the voice of the Holy Ghost.

We search in order to find two kinds of evidence: charismatic evidence and rational evidence. Charismatic evidence consists of experiences we have had that support a principle. In this category, we could place Paul’s witness of Christ: He saw; therefore, he knew. We could place Joseph of Egypt’s dream of the 14 years of plenty and famine in this category. In fact, the scriptures are full of visitations, visions, dreams, and voices that all serve as charismatic evidence for a particular idea. We should exercise extreme caution in considering emotional experiences as charismatic evidence.³

Rational evidence is a historical, scriptural, or logical argument that supports or contradicts a given principle. Rational evidence can be evaluated absent of experience. Rational evidence is a powerful tool for disproving principles, since only one counterexample is needed to disprove something. But it has another more important use. While charismatic experience is how we gain unshakeable testimonies of truth, charismatic experiences come largely as the result of experimenting on God’s word. Without logical, scriptural, or historical reason to believe on a proffered principle, one will not have enough faith to experiment on it. Rational evidence provides a bridge between where we currently stand and where we need to stand in order to receive a charismatic witness.

We are testing the word when we refrain from considering a teaching true until the Lord proves it to us through a charismatic experience. Asking questions and doubting are essential to provide the real intent necessary to learn new truth through study and revelation. Since one cannot have faith in a false principle, the evaluation of potential truth is a task of utmost importance to those of faith, for the attempted exercise of faith in false principles will perpetuate ignorance, stall progression, and further delay a first-hand experience with God.

To find truth, you must be your belief system’s hardest critic. You must be informed. How can you satisfactorily persuade someone who does not believe you without being prepared to answer any criticism of your belief? If what you believe is true, seeking to contradict it can only improve your ability to persuade others. Of course, it will also lead to situations where you discover that what you previously believed is, in fact, false. While selfinvestigation will sometimes lead to disproving previously held notions, letting go of false beliefs draws one closer to God. Therefore, whether resulting in affirmation or disproof, honest questioning can only lead closer to God.

Sir Carl Popper wrote,

For all of us, in all our activities, the notions that we can do better only by finding out what can be improved and then improving it; and therefore that shortcomings are to be actively sought out, not concealed or passed over; and that critical comment from others, far from being resented, is an invaluable aid to be insisted on and welcomed, are liberating to a remarkable degree. It may be difficult to get people— conditioned to resent criticism and expect it to be resented, and therefore to keep silent about both their own mistakes and others'—to provide the criticisms on which improvement depends; but no one can possibly give us more service than by showing us what is wrong with what we think or do; and the bigger the fault, the bigger the improvement made possible by its revelation. The man who welcomes and acts on criticism will prize it almost above friendship: the man who fights it out of concern to maintain his position is clinging to non-growth. (Sir Carl Popper quoted in “Popper”, Bryan Magee, 1973, p. 39.)

Seeking Truth Requires Considering Other Views

If one assumes that they lack knowledge, the next step is to seek it. If we want to learn more than we know, we will have to investigate points of view that don’t belong to us already. While it is possible that new knowledge exists outside the bounds of accepted truth, scriptural examples suggest it is much more likely that further light and truth will clash with what we already think we know than support it. However, this gives us no reason to fear reading or hearing information that doesn’t agree with what we believe. After all, if we believe man is fallen and God is perfect, we ought to understand that his revelation of our misconceptions is how we become more like him.

Fear of searching was not present historically. Consider the following:

If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed. (President J. Reuben Clark)

Convince us of our errors of Doctrine, if we have any, by reason, by logical arguments, or by the Word of God and we will ever be grateful for the information and you will ever have the pleasing reflections that you have been instruments in the hands of God of redeeming your fellow beings. (Orson Pratt, “The Seer,” p. 15.)

...[t]he man who cannot listen to an argument which opposes his views either has a weak position or is a weak defender of it. No opinion that cannot stand discussion or criticism is worth holding. And it has been wisely said that the man who knows only half of any question is worse off than the man who knows nothing of it. He is not only onesided but his partisanship soon turns him into an intolerant and a fanatic. In general, it is true that nothing which cannot stand up under discussion or criticism is worth defending. (James E. Talmage Improvement Era, Jan 1920, p. 204)

If a faith will not bear to be investigated; if its preachers and professors are afraid to have it examined, their foundation must be very weak. (President George A. Smith)

I think a full, free talk is frequently of great use; we want nothing secret nor underhanded, and I for one want no association with things that cannot be talked about and will not bear investigation. (Journal of Discourses, 20:264)

I admire men and women who have developed the questioning spirit, who are unafraid of new ideas and stepping stones to progress. We should, of course, respect the opinions of others, but we should also be unafraid to dissent—if we are informed. Thoughts and expressions compete in the marketplace of thought, and in that competition truth emerges triumphant. Only error fears freedom of expression. This free exchange of ideas is not to be deplored as long as men and women remain humble and teachable. Neither fear of consequence nor any kind of coercion should ever be used to secure uniformity of thought in the church. People should express their problems and opinions and be unafraid to think without fear of ill consequences. We must preserve freedom of the mind in the church and resist all efforts to suppress it. (Hugh B. Brown, counselor in First Presidency, Speech at BYU, March 29, 1958.)

As you accept the responsibility to seek after truth with an open mind and a humble heart, you will become more tolerant of others, more open to listen, more prepared to understand... (Dieter F. Uchtdorf, https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/cesdevotionals/2013/01/what-is-truth)

Many have noted the strong tendency of Latter-day Saints to avoid making waves. They seem strangely touchy on controversial issues. This begets an extreme lack of candor among the Saints, which in turn is supported by a new doctrine, according to which we have a Prophet at our head who relieves us of all responsibility for seeking knowledge beyond a certain point, making decisions, or taking action on our own. (Hugh Nibley, Temples of the Ancient World, p. 610)

...while I believe all that God has revealed, I am not quite sure that I understand what he has revealed, and the fact that he has promised further revelation is to me a challenge to keep an open mind and be prepared to follow wherever my search for truth may lead....We have been blessed with much knowledge by revelation from God which, in some part, the world lacks. But there is an incomprehensibly greater part of truth which we must yet discover. Our revealed truth should leave us stricken with the knowledge of how little we really know. It should never lead to an emotional arrogance based upon a false assumption that we somehow have all the answers--that we in fact have a corner on truth....Preserve...the freedom of your mind in education and in religion, and be unafraid to express your thoughts and to insist upon your right to examine every proposition. We are not so much concerned with whether your thoughts are orthodox or heterodox as we are that you shall have thoughts. (Hugh B. Brown, BYU May 13, 1969 address, “An Eternal Quest: Freedom of the Mind.” )

Despite the historical record of church leaders advocating exactly that, we find ourselves in a paradigm that challenges us to not only avoid consideration of opposing positions, but to avoid even the idea of rational evaluation of our own position.⁴

Searching for truth requires a willingness to investigate both sides of a position as objectively as possible. If you are merely arguing for your position, you cannot honestly say you are searching for truth. You do not know all things, and therefore you cannot ever be totally sure that you are right. If you aren't willing to be wrong about something, you can only go so far in your search for truth.

There ought not be any fear of losing what you already have—a rational mind will only replace a previous position with a more solid position. An open mind and a desire to know truth will only ever lead a person closer to God.

Fear of finding new truth is simply not well founded. As a camera focuses, the image becomes more clear. Although the view certainly changes, the progress is always a refinement. A focused camera picture represents only information gain, not loss. Perhaps this is why Nephi said,

I know that the words of truth are hard against all uncleanness; but the righteous fear them not, for they love the truth and are not shaken. (2 Nephi 9:40.)

Nephi himself was no stranger to uncomfortable new truth. His life was a constant barrage of paradigm shifts. These showed him that he could always confide in God, even if it meant abandoning things he previously thought were true, or blazing paths unfamiliar to his culture and heritage.

Knowledge of opposing views is absolutely necessary for two reasons. First, a rational position requires knowledge of both sides of an issue. For example, how could you honestly say that one variety of apple is the tastiest if you’ve never tried another variety? Second, you cannot effectively persuade others if you are not aware of why they believe what they do. Knowing your counterpart’s reasons for their belief is a two-fold benefit. First, construction of a persuasive argument on your part requires you to address their reasons for believing. Continuing with the apple example, how could you persuade a fan of golden delicious that granny smith is superior if you have never actually tried golden delicious? The strength of your position depends on your addressing their reasons for believing. Secondly, an intrinsic benefit of investigating your opponent’s position is the possible discovery that they are, in fact, correct. Just as you could possess evidences of your position that your counterpart had never considered, so could they. You could very well end up supporting their position should their evidence prove stronger than yours. Yet, such a situation is to be desired, not feared, for those in possession of greater truth have drawn closer to God.

You Don’t Know Everything

In context of what is at stake, it becomes evident just how important it is to always welcome new truth. Nephi warned that in our day many would not be interested in more truth.

Yea, wo be unto him that saith: We have received, and we need no more! And in fine, wo unto all those who tremble, and are angry because of the truth of God! For behold, he that is built upon the rock receiveth it with gladness; and he that is built upon a sandy foundation trembleth lest he shall fall. Wo be unto him that shall say: We have received the word of God, and we need no more of the word of God, for we have enough! For behold, thus saith the Lord God: I will give unto the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who hearken unto my precepts, and lend an ear unto my counsel, for they shall learn wisdom; for unto him that receiveth I will give more; and from them that shall say, We have enough, from them shall be taken away even that which they have. (2 Nephi 28:27-30.)

We are told that those who adopt this position will not be given any additional truth, and thus will never reach the point where they can come back into God’s presence. The attitude of satisfaction is damning. One way of wording this is that those who consider themselves wise will never accept new truth. Nephi’s declaration of the same is frequently used as a caution to those who study the gospel more than the usual cursory amount:

And whoso knocketh, to him will he open; and the wise, and the learned, and they that are rich, who are puffed up because of their learning, and their wisdom, and their riches—yea, they are they whom he despiseth; and save they shall cast these things away, and consider themselves fools before God, and come down in the depths of humility, he will not open unto them. (2 Nephi 9:42.)

However, a careful reading will show that Nephi is not blasting the same acquisition of real knowledge he advocates for throughout his writings. Instead, he is condemning the feeling of supposing you know all there is to know. The Lord does not despise those who acquire knowledge. He despises those who assume they know something despite their ignorance. He despises those who think they know more than God, and ignore what he tries to teach them, assuming they already know what he wants. Nephi states that the antidote to the poison of pride is to “hearken unto the counsels of God.” (2 Nephi 9:29.)

In order to consider yourself a fool before God, and yet relentlessly seek and obtain further light and truth from him, you must adopt the difficult position of at once being perceptive and faithful enough to act on everything you have been taught thus far while also being ready at a moment’s notice to cast it aside in favor of greater light and truth.

Joseph stated that when individuals assume that their preconceived notions about the gospel encompass all there is to know, they will be sorely disappointed:

It is the constitutional disposition of mankind to set up stakes and set bounds to the works and ways of the Almighty. But I will give you a more painful thought. Suppose you have an idea of a resurrection, etc., and yet know nothing at all of the Gospel, nor comprehend one principle of the order of heaven, but find yourselves disappointed—yes, at last find yourselves disappointed in every hope or anticipation, when the decision goes forth from the lips of the Almighty. Would not this be a greater disappointment—a more painful thought than annihilation....Why be so certain that you comprehend the things of God, when all things with you are so uncertain. (TPJS, p. 229-230.)

While spiritual stagnation is comfortable, it is also damning. It is easy and comfortable to live your religion when you assume that it will always be the same: your spiritual practices will never change, nor will the requirements of salvation. However, every saved person in the scriptures—every person with whom God made a covenant—was constantly subjected to principles that were beyond their previous comprehension despite their righteous lives. Abraham was asked to sacrifice Isaac, Moses was astounded by things he had never before supposed, etc. This is because we are not like God. We possess the degree of glory associated with the degree of the law we live. If we live a Celestial law, we possess Celestial glory, Terrestrial law, Terrestrial glory, and so on (see D&C 88:20-35). In order to ascend to a higher degree of glory, we will always need to embrace a set of laws that we are ignorant of. If you live your current beliefs perfectly, and have not been brought back into God’s presence, your current beliefs do not possess the power to bring you back into God’s presence. Like it or not, this means you necessary do not possess the same beliefs as Moses, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Adam, Joseph Smith, and all other saved men.⁵ Therefore, coming up to a Celestial glory will require letting go of at least some of the things you currently hold as true. You cannot close yourself to ideas you perceive as contradictory to current beliefs and simultaneously let in further light and truth. God can only teach us a

...portion of his word...according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him. And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full. And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries; and then they are taken captive by the devil, and led by his will down to destruction. Now this is what is meant by the chains of hell. (Alma 12:9-11.)

Not even Jesus himself possessed all there was to know in the beginning:

And he received not of the fulness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fulness; And thus he was called the Son of God, because he received not of the fulness at the first. (D&C 93:13-14).

Those that believe that they already know all the doctrines necessary to be saved presume they know more than Jesus did, as he had to progress from one teaching to the next. They presume that, while Enoch and his city required hundreds of years to become Zion, they can do it with what little we have handed to us through Joseph Smith. Enoch learned new fundamental truths about God’s character after having been in heaven with God for generations.⁶ As the Lord said,

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. (Isaiah 55:8-9.)

Frankly, no one knows everything there is to know. If Jesus, Enoch, and others still had a lot to learn, we should be very cautious in our assertions of what we “know” to be true. Otherwise, we fall into the category of those who think they are wise, which incidentally means precisely that we do not hearken to God:

O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing that they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish. (2 Nephi 9:28.)

It may seem difficult to imagine that thinking you know something and failing to hearken to God are the same. Yet, Jacob equates it to being deaf (2 Nephi 9:31) and blind (2 Nephi 9:32), probably because God continues to reveal new things to everyone as long as they continue to listen to him. Therefore, if you become set in your idea of the truth, you could only have become so by ignoring what God is continuing to say to you. Living revelation means constant revelation. We should expect to frequently displace our current understanding with something better.

You should not assume something is false simply because you have never heard it before. Anyone who does not believe they know everything ought to expect to hear something that they’ve never heard before, or something that contradicts what they have been told previously.

One way to discover further light and truth is to ponder problems that persist in the orthodox paradigm.⁷ Situations that fail to find a solution in orthodoxy are fertile ground for receiving revelation. Postman and Weingartner wrote,

We are unlikely to alter our perceptions until and unless we are frustrated in our attempts to do something based on them. If our actions seem to permit us to fulfil our purposes, we will not change our perceptions no matter how often we are told that they are 'wrong'. (Postman and Weingartner, “Teaching as a Subversive Activity”, p. 93.)

As long as we are satisfied by our current understanding of what is true, we never really have a reason to marshal real intent, a necessary prerequisite to receiving revelation. President Uchtdorf said, “How often has the Holy Spirit tried to tell us something we needed to know but couldn’t get past the massive iron gate of what we thought we already knew?”⁸

Jesus taught we should be like children.⁹ Children are inquisitive. They never stop wondering and testing. They are never satisfied.

Abraham found himself unsatisfied in the orthodoxy of his time. He somehow noticed that there were greater blessings available to him than the theology of his father offered him.

In the land of the Chaldeans, at the residence of my fathers, I, Abraham, saw that it was needful for me to obtain another place of residence; And, finding there was greater happiness and peace and rest for me, I sought for the blessings of the fathers, and the right whereunto I should be ordained to administer the same; having been myself a follower of righteousness, desiring also to be one who possessed great knowledge, and to be a greater follower of righteousness, and to possess a greater knowledge, and to be a father of many nations, a prince of peace, and desiring to receive instructions, and to keep the commandments of God, I became a rightful heir, a High Priest, holding the right belonging to the fathers. (Abraham 1:1-2.)

Abraham clearly had heard stories that described religious experiences far exceeding those he observed in the religion of his father. Thus, he believed that there had to be a better system available than what he had experienced.¹⁰

A Willingness to be Wrong

Nephi’s example underscores the importance of accepting the possibility that your understanding of what God wants is wrong. Nephi demonstrated this humility when he was willing to accept God’s command to slay Laban despite it contradicting his understanding of God’s commandments. He taught that we should not “set aside” God’s counsel on account of our “supposing [we] know of [ourselves].” (2 Nephi 9:28.) In other words, we ought to be willing to be wrong, and willing to have God correct us.

A proper response to an invitation from another to consider a different point of view should always be met with patient, unbiased consideration. Joseph displayed this attitude throughout his life, despite continuously accruing evidence that he knew more about God than anyone alive at the time.

Some respond to an invitation to consider a new point of view with anger:

And it came to pass as he began to expound these things unto them they were angry with him, and began to mock him; and they would not hear the words which he spake....And it came to pass that they saw that the people would harden their hearts, therefore they departed and came over into the land of Middoni. And they did preach the word unto many, and few believed on the words which they taught. (Alma 21:10,12.)

Should you find yourself getting angry at such an invitation, it should serve as a signal that you have cut yourself off from the learning process, and have become one who thinks they are wise (see 2 Nephi 9:29, 42).

Anger is never a result of rational consideration of evidence. It causes God to withdraw the opportunity to learn more. We are taught plainly that we are not excused to become angry even when the novel position we are invited to consider is that our presumed righteous behavior is actually sin.¹¹

Consider that the mission of prophets is to call men to repentance. Therefore, we ought not to take offense at supposed messengers when they come calling us to repentance. We ought to expect it. We ought to thank them for it, because their works are good. It is the response of the offended, and not the message of the preacher, that is wicked.

For behold, at that day shall he rage in the hearts of the children of men, and stir them up to anger against that which is good. (2 Ne 28:20.)

Brigham Young gave a particularly good example of a righteous reaction to a new candidate truth. He said he welcomed anyone who thought they could prove his beliefs incorrect:

I will tell you who the real fanatics are: they are they who adopt false principles and ideas as facts, and try to establish a superstructure upon a false foundation...If our religion is of this character we want to know it; we would like to find a philosopher who can prove it to us. (Brigham Young, JD 13:270.)

He was not alone. It seemed early Mormons had studied both their own positions and the alternatives enough to be confident in their choice to the point of not fearing opposing argument:

...convince us of our errors of doctrine, if we have any, by reason, by logical arguments, or by the Word of God, and we will be ever grateful for the information, and you will ever have the pleasing reflection that you have been instruments in the hands of God of redeeming your fellow beings from the darkness which you may see enveloping their minds. (Apostle Orson Pratt, The Seer, pp. 15-16.)

This is perhaps not surprising, as all of the early brethren were converts to the restoration, and had to have at one point been willing to listen to opposing views in order to have accepted the gospel. In today’s church, where almost half of members inherit the faith of their parents, this is not the case.

Avoiding Bias in Evaluation

For most, unbiased evaluation of opposing views is particularly difficult. After all, no one wants to turn away from their life's work, or the legacy of their ancestors. The more that is sacrificed for a belief system, the less likely one is to abandon that belief system. The loss isn't all ideological, either. For example, suppose you were a General Authority.¹² Discovering truth that compromised your temple recommend status would mean not only great social stigma and familial troubles, but also a great financial loss. The best strategy, then, is to detach the search for truth from our temporal and philosophical circumstance.

In order to maintain objectivity, one must adopt an anthropological attitude.

The [anthropological] perspective allows one to be part of his own culture and, at the same time, be out of it. One views the activities of his own group as would an anthropologist, observing its tribal rituals, its fears, its conceits, its ethnocentrism. In this way, one is able to recognize when reality begins to drift too far away from the grasp of the tribe. (Postman and Weingartner, “Teaching as a Subversive Activity”, p. 17.)

The anthropological attitude helps one suspend their cultural and experiential bias in evaluating new perspectives. The ability to unplug from the network of one’s observations and conclusions is absolutely vital in order to logically consider alternative possibilities.

Once candidate truth has passed anthropological assessment, previously accumulated observations and conclusions must be folded back in to evaluate whether they still hold.

Falsifiability

Advancement in knowledge requires that one’s position be falsifiable. Falsifiability is defined as “the logical possibility that an assertion could be shown false by a particular observation or physical experiment.” (Karl Popper.) In other words, falsifiability means that your belief can be proven wrong. If no counter evidence could ever be sufficient to convince you that your position is wrong, your position is not falsifiable. A belief that is not falsifiable can never be abandoned, and thus an unfalsifiable position is always the last position you will ever hold on any given topic. This is, essentially, damnation, because you limit yourself to the glory associated with the current law you live.¹³ You have drawn a line in the sand beyond which you are not willing to move, whether or not greater truth exists.

Falsifiability highlights the danger of dogmatic assertions unattached from specific evidences. Suppose one says “the church is true.” This is not a falsifiable statement. In order to make it falsifiable, one must define what “true” means and/or say why the church is true. Without a specification of what “the church is true” means, it is not falsifiable. Any attempt to assume a meaning (such as everything in the church is sanctioned by God) in order to provide a counterexample would result in the person saying, “but no one is saying that is what it means.” Thus, a rational argument cannot take place. If someone says “the church is God’s because he said so,” that becomes a falsifiable statement. If someone wants to show this is false, they must simply present revelation where God said it was not his church at a later date than the statement cited by the believer. Another example lies in whether you believe the current church president is a prophet of God. Without defining what a prophet is, whether he is or is not a prophet is impossible to prove.

A religion that cannot be proven false cannot be true. If you can think of no change in doctrine or policy that would cause you to conclude your religion is false, your religion cannot be true.

Truth Can Come from Anywhere

In the process of evaluating truth, candidate truth should never be dismissed out of hand. We dismiss candidate truth out of hand when we assume the church is the source of all truth. This belief is manifested when we refuse to consider material not officially sanctioned by the church. Sometimes, we dismiss candidate truth out of hand through association with terms that generate an immediate emotive response. For example, when we associate material with “apostasy,” do we immediately feel badly or set it aside? Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said there were “phrases that serve as an excuse for not thinking.” We must exercise caution and control our emotive responses. Vocabulary concepts can be a powerful means of thought control.¹⁴

Dismissing a matter out of hand was specifically forbidden under the law of Moses. “Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth?” (John 7:51) How can one honestly evaluate whether a position is true without first hearing why someone holds it? “He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.” (Proverbs 18:13.)

The idea that truth can come from anywhere is not only true, but was once a founding principle of Mormonism. Joseph Smith wrote:

Mormonism is truth; and every man who embraces it feels himself at liberty to embrace every truth: consequently the shackles of superstition, bigotry, ignorance, and priestcraft, fall at once from his neck; and his eyes are opened to see the truth, and truth greatly prevails over priestcraft....Mormonism is truth, in other words the doctrine of the Latter-day Saints, is truth....The first and fundamental principle of our holy religion is, that we believe that we have a right to embrace all, and every item of truth, without limitation or without being circumscribed or prohibited by the creeds or superstitious notions of men, or by the dominations of one another, when that truth is clearly demonstrated to our minds, and we have the highest degree of evidence of the same. (Letter from Joseph Smith to Isaac Galland, Mar. 22, 1839, Liberty Jail, Liberty, Missouri, published in Times and Seasons, Feb. 1840, pp. 53–54; spelling and grammar modernized.)

This principle endured at least into Brigham Young’s administration. It was a frequent theme in his sermons:

I want to say to my friends that we believe in all good. If you can find a truth in heaven, earth or hell, it belongs to our doctrine. We believe it; it is ours; we claim it. (Brigham Young, DBY, p. 2).

In Joseph’s day, and for decades thereafter, it was well established that Mormonism was not the source of all truth, but a collection of men and women who sought all truth no matter where it came from. As time has passed, many Mormons have shifted to assuming that the church is the source of all truth. One noted exception was Dr. Henry Eyring, the prominent scientist and father of President Henry B. Eyring. He took a position consistent with Joseph Smith. He recognized that he was “obliged, as a Latter-day Saint, to believe whatever is true, regardless of the source.” (Henry Eyring, “The Faith of a Scientist,” Bookcraft 1969, p. 31) He took the position that the leaders of the church do not define what the church is. Rather, truth defines what the church is: “The Gospel is not the people in the Church. The Gospel is not even the people who direct it. The Gospel is the truth.” (Henry Eyring, “The Faith of a Scientist,” Bookcraft 1969, p. 23.)

The idea that all truth belongs in the church is much different from the idea that all truth comes from the church. In the former, members are expected to evaluate candidate truth from any source, including the need to evaluate what is said by their leaders. In the latter, members are expected to reject anything as false unless they hear it from their leaders while also assuming everything spoken by their leaders is true.

The former was taught by Joseph Smith and, after him, Brigham Young.

Be willing to receive the truth, let it come from whom it may; no difference, not a particle. Just as soon receive the Gospel from Joseph Smith as from Peter, who lived in the days of Jesus. Receive it from one man as soon as another. If God has called an individual and sent him to preach the Gospel that is enough for me to know; it is no matter who it is, all I want is to know the truth (DBY, p. 11).

The latter is taught by modern Mormonism:¹⁵

...the Lord speaks to the church through the Prophet....no one can be appointed to an office without a vote of the church....no one is to receive revelation for the church except the prophet....no one is to preach or build up the church except he be regularly ordained by the head of the church.16

It is a mistake to disbelieve something simply because it is not preached in the church or even that it is contrary to something preached in the church.¹⁷ The idea of the church as the source of all truth seems to have been created by President Harold B. Lee as the foundational idea behind his correlation program—placing the entire church in a hierarchical form under the president of the church. In the church, the correlation committee has the exclusive right to define what is true and what isn't, and members need not seek anywhere but in correlation-approved materials for what is useful in one's return to Christ. This invisible group of academically-trained theologians decide what is taught in CES classes, what appears in the church manuals, and what is allowed to be said at conference. The proclaimed purpose of this committee is to ensure that doctrinal errors do not appear in church settings, yet their material is fraught with errors and egregious omissions. They are the source of what “the church” teaches. They define orthodoxy.

The Lord taught in D&C 121 that an appeal to authority to convince of truth is unrighteous dominion. A principle should not be considered true simply because it is endorsed by the church¹⁸ or any individual or group within the church. Absent convincing arguments that withstand critical investigation, no principle ought to be accepted. Or, as the apostle John put it, “Dear friends, don’t believe everyone who claims to have the Spirit of God. Test them all to find out if they really do come from God.” (1 John 4:12, CEV.)

Orthodoxy is at odds with an open canon. It cannot co-exist with the expectation that God will yet reveal great things to the church and that he will reveal things never before revealed to individuals. Progress towards God is marked by invitations to do things you had either never before considered (as Moses was) or things you thought were previously wrong (as Nephi was when he was told to kill Laban). God will consistently challenge your paradigms. Ironically, orthodoxy is used as the measuring stick for apostasy, when the idea of a closed canon is itself apostate.

Orthodoxy is the antithesis of seeking truth from God.¹⁹ The latter requires a constant search for new facts, new observations, and new theories. The former “tenaciously defend[s] beliefs in the face of what would appear to be verified fact and plain logic...doggedly closing eyes and minds to ideas whose time has surely come.” (James Hogan, “Kicking the Sacred Cow”, p. 8.)

Joseph Smith not only preached to consider candidate truth from all sources—he also practiced it. One morning a man came into his house and introduced himself as Joshua. Joseph asked Joshua questions about his interesting ideas on religion. Despite obvious differences, he invited him to give them a lecture on his beliefs to assist him in his evaluation of what he was preaching. It took Joseph two full days of association with this man’s message to reach the point where he was willing to say his doctrine was incorrect. He did not dismiss Joshua out of hand. He listened and patiently evaluated his message.

Unbelief

Refusing to believe something is true is a sin called unbelief. Prophets of the Book of Mormon taught that unbelief comes when people dismiss candidate truth that contradicts the false traditions of their fathers out of hand:

For behold, had the mighty works been shown unto them which have been shown unto you, yea, unto them who have dwindled in unbelief because of the traditions of their fathers, ye can see of yourselves that they never would again have dwindled in unbelief. (Helaman 15:15.)

In order to repent of unbelief, then, we have to be willing to consider that the traditions of our fathers, which we believe are correct, may be false.²⁰ We must be willing to objectively evaluate what we are told by others, even if it contradicts what we already believe. Sometimes the only way God can help us overcome our false traditions is by sending true messengers that contradict them. When true messengers preach to us, it at first seems painfully contradictory to our false traditions.²¹ But, if we heed Jesus’ commandment to be like a child by considering the new doctrine, we will find that it makes more sense the longer we consider it.²² The longer a true doctrine is studied, the more it makes sense. The more a false doctrine is studied, the more it crumbles.²³

True Doctrine Bears Fruit

The Savior taught that true doctrine can be proven by the fruits it produces.²⁴ He taught that it was both necessary and possible to prove candidate truth.

If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. (John 7:17.)

He taught that true doctrine taught by true messengers is always accompanied by signs.²⁵

And these signs shall follow them that believe—In my name they shall do many wonderful works; In my name they shall cast out devils; In my name they shall heal the sick; In my name they shall open the eyes of the blind, and unstop the ears of the deaf; And the tongue of the dumb shall speak; And if any man shall administer poison unto them it shall not hurt them; And the poison of a serpent shall not have power to harm them. (D&C 84:65-72.)

Despite this truth being presented in the D&C, the New Testament (Mark 16:17-18), the Book of Mormon (Mormon 9:24), and the temple endowment, some modern leaders have taught that signs are not necessary to evidence true messengers:

Show me Latter-day Saints who have to feed upon miracles, signs and visions in order to keep them steadfast in the Church, and I will show you members of the Church who are not in good standing before God, and who are walking in slippery paths. It is not by marvelous manifestations unto us that we shall be established in the truth, but it is by humility and faithful obedience to the commandments and laws of God. (Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine.)

By showing fruit that could only come through God's approbation, Jesus showed he was a true messenger:

And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts? For whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk? But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house. And he arose, and departed to his house. (Matthew 9:4-7.)

In attributing the fruits of examined doctrine, we need to be cognizant of common causes. Any member can cite a list of positive outcomes associated with a doctrinal point according to their understanding. The idea is that someone can’t challenge one of your beliefs if you have experienced blessings that you attribute to that belief. The weakness of this position is that it is possible that the blessings came from something else.

Blessings come due to obedience to the law upon which they are predicated.²⁶ However, isn’t it possible that the blessings came from some sub-piece of the commandment we believe in? For example, if I believed in paying 11% tithing, would I not receive the same blessings as you do for paying 10% tithing? Yet, my belief in 11% tithing being a commandment is wrong. Perhaps the additional incorrect belief is benign. But what if the addition causes me to break God’s other commandments because of my following a false tradition? Jesus’ teachings showed this was possible.²⁷ For example, what if the extra 1% of tithing prevents me from using that money to help the poor?

Another fallacy is non sequitor, or misattributing a conclusion to a given premise. For example, although God said the Constitution was inspired, it does not follow that he endorses everything the USA does, whether it is in accordance with the Constitution or not. However, modern Mormons invite investigators to pray about the Book of Mormon, saying that if God says it is true, everything the church does is endorsed by him.

Here, then, is a procedure to handle most objections through the use of the Book of Mormon....if the Book of Mormon is true, then Jesus is the Christ, Joseph Smith was his prophet, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true, and it is being led today by a prophet receiving revelation. (President Ezra Taft Benson, April 1975 General Conference, also quoted in “Preach My Gospel.”)

This logical fallacy can also extend to conflating the source of blessings. What if in addition to paying tithing, I also did home teaching? Would I be correct in assuming that the windows of heaven were being opened because I was home teaching? Yet, the incorrectness of a theory doesn’t mean that nothing good can come of it. Home teaching may be a good thing even if it does not result in the same set of blessings predicated upon tithing.

One security in the otherwise uncomfortable position of considering that one’s evidences of treasured beliefs are in fact ascribable to another belief is that any experiences of value or true observations must still be accounted for in any replacement belief. “Disproving an opponent's premises does nothing to refute his conclusions.” (“Popper”, Bryan Magee, 1973, p. 42.) In other words, in searching for truth, there is no risk of losing anything of value—it all has to be accounted for in any change that occurs.

We all have positive experiences in the church. Yet, having a positive experience with a Muslim would not lead you to conclude the Muslim is part of the Lord's church, that there is only one such incorporated body, and that everything a Muslim does (including those things that had nothing to do with your experience) is sanctioned by the Lord. Any observations or experiences of value within a later-proved theory must be addressed in a replacement theory.

The Source of a Message Does Not Impact its Truthfulness

Jesus’ authority did not come from the church authorities of his day. Nor did it come from the fact that he was the Son of God.²⁸ Jesus’ authority came through the provenance of his message. He spoke the words of the Father. Those who judged the truthfulness of his message based on earthly authority incorrectly rejected him.

And when [Jesus] was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogues, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this Jesus this wisdom and these mighty works? Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? And they were offended at him. (Matthew 14:55-57, Inspired Version.)

We ought to assume that those who use the same false standards today will also reject God’s true messengers. If we reject true messengers, we too will be rejected.

My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children. (Hosea 4:6.)

Modern Mormonism teaches that that no true messenger will come without church recognition and church authority.¹⁶ Applying this standard would reject not only most of the true messengers in the scriptures, but Christ himself.

Seek for Contradictions

Every belief structure can be thought of as a map. Our observational experience is akin to the actual terrain. For whatever reason, most people of faith are not very apt at comparing their map to the surrounding terrain. Any difference in the two is contradiction.

Modern Mormons suppress contradictions to their model, but they aren't alone in the practice. This behavior is the result of confirmation bias or cognitive dissonance. Confirmation bias occurs when we see all evidence as support for what we already believe when some of it is actually evidence that opposes what we believe. Cognitive dissonance is a negative emotive response that occurs when our experiences contradict our belief system, causing us to flee from or ignore situations that do not support our belief system. We see examples of these phenomena not only in the way we selectively remember things, but also in the way we interpret evidence. This is why one scripture can be read that directly contradicts a tenet of someone’s faith, yet that person can contort it to fit.

It only takes a single contradiction or counterexample to prove an idea false. For instance, if I said all pigs fly, I would only need to find one pig that did not, in fact, fly, to show that all pigs do not fly. For a scriptural example, look at Sherem. He said that no man can know of things future, but also said that there should be no Christ, which he couldn’t possibly know unless men could know of things future (see Alma 30). Contradictions can be a powerful tool for discerning between truth and error.

Search for Questions Without Answers

Jesus repeatedly said, “ask and ye shall receive.” The restoration of the gospel occurred because a boy didn’t accept the answers he was given by religious leaders, but asked God directly. The Book of Mormon is punctuated by a promise that God will answer any sincere question. Beware of any who tell you not to ask questions or that certain questions are off limits.

Situations that fail to find a solution in orthodoxy are fertile ground for receiving revelation. Postman and Weingartner wrote,

We are unlikely to alter our perceptions until and unless we are frustrated in our attempts to do something based on them. If our actions seem to permit us to fulfil our purposes, we will not change our perceptions no matter how often we are told that they are 'wrong'. (Postman and Weingartner, “Teaching as a Subversive Activity”, p. 93.)

In forming questions, we should be specific. Ill-formed questions yield less effective answers. They reveal the bias and/or ill preparation of the asker. For example, asking “is the church true” reveals that the asker errantly believes that either everything the church does is sanctioned by God, or nothing the church does is sanctioned by God. A better question would be to ask what is really wanted. As Heisenberg said, “We have to remember that what we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our methods of questioning.” For example, “should I be baptized into the LDS church, given that at least some doctrines it teaches are true” is a much more effective question than “is the church true.” The Spirit has to answer your question: even if your question is ill-posed, he will tell you the answer that will bring you closer to God.²⁹ The way we ask questions will inform what we believe more than anything else.

Every faith group has developed a vocabulary of words whose meaning goes beyond the ordinary meaning for outsiders. In the LDS church, words like authority, prophet, sustain, atonement, and apostasy have very different meanings than they do to non-LDS. A precise vocabulary is important. While it is easy to adopt the vocabulary of the status quo, we should strive to use more precise words:

The level of abstraction at which one uses language in any context is an index of the extent to which one is in touch with reality. The higher the level, the less is the contact with reality. (Postman and Weingartner, “Teaching as a Subversive Activity”, p. 120.)

There are experiences and situations that simply cannot be described with the status-quo vocabulary. Without a precise vocabulary, it is impossible to have a belief system that is falsifiable. Using an imprecise religious vocabulary limits the degree of thought and introspection that one can have. As an example, there are those in the church who think that the definition of “prophet” is “someone whose words you obey without question,” while some in the church define “prophet” as “someone who repeats words God spoke to him.” Say what you actually mean, and you will have a new source of questions to ask. A vague vocabulary makes for a vague and weak religion. Vague questions can only lead to vague answers. An articulate, precise question will lead to an articulate, precise answer.

Although unintentional, the verbal biases of LDS vocabulary have the unfortunate effect of preventing members from obtaining anything but a superficial and vague understanding of the doctrines and an inability to distinguish them from tradition. Loaded, biased vocabularies have the side effect not only of evoking negative emotions in response to critical thinking, but also of preventing such thinking in the first place through inability of expression.³⁰ Parsing semantics will sidestep the emotive responses engrained in the broader unspoken definitions of common terms and open the door to a deeper understanding of doctrine and traditions. We see what we say, but we must learn to say what we see.³¹ Specificity in terms unfortunately brings negative responses from those who are not interested in more accurate expression, who will see your efforts of verbal precision as subversion.³²

We ought not assume an answer is the final answer. Alma taught:

It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him. And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full. (Alma 12:9-10.)

God can only reveal as much truth to a person as they are prepared to receive. What happens, then, if one asks a question whose answer they are not ready to receive? God’s answer to such a person will be partial—it will consist of what they are ready to receive.³³ To the person who is fully ready, the full answer will be given. This is one reason why two people can pray over the same question and receive two seemingly different answers.

God said, “All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it.”³⁴ The Spirit can reveal something that is true in your “sphere” of understanding, but to someone who has attained to a different “sphere,” or a higher degree of knowledge, would be false. This concept is hard for some to accept,³⁵ but consider a decimal point number as an analogy. Additional digits of precision are true, as are less digits of precision. However, to the engineer possessing the decimal of ten digits’ precision, the decimal of two digits’ precision is less true. Then there are those who round off and receive even less precision. Just as one could add digits of precision infinitely, God’s truth never ceases (even though there is a finite limit to Telestial knowledge).

Nephi experienced the progressive nature of God's law when God amended “thou shalt not kill” with some particulars that indicated, in the case of Laban, that it was indeed correct to kill. There was a higher law, an additional digit of precision. As an example, consider the group of disciples in the New Testament that had received the authoritative baptism of John, but had not yet received the baptism of the apostles.³⁶ They recognized a higher law, and submitted to rebaptism to gain the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Because the degree of glory we enjoy in life is dictated by the degree of God's law that we live,³⁷ we should always be willing and eager to receive further light and truth in order to expand and clarify the law we currently have. This will likely cause us to change what we are doing. To facilitate this process, we should always be willing to ask questions to further our understanding of answers we have already received—like a child. We should never judge someone who fully believes that their actions are in accordance with God’s word when we have received a different answer to the same question, knowing that it is very possible that they have progressed past us in knowledge. Instead, we should do as Nephi did when presented with his father’s strange claims of having a vision that contradicted Nephi’s understanding: we should pray and ask God. Even if we are not prepared for the answer, God will mobilize the necessary experiences in our life to bring us to the point where we can receive the same knowledge.

Conclusion

A true search for truth must be a consistent rational evaluation of new evidences, both those that support and those that refute currently held positions. In order to search for truth, then, one must be able to enumerate the reasons for their currently held beliefs. Anyone who preaches the gospel must already be able to give reasons for what they believe. Yet a surprising number of people both attempt to preach the gospel and defend their own beliefs without any substance at all. Instead, their entire argument consists of a few tired logical fallacies. These ineffective attempts fail to convert because one has no reason to pray with real intent until they believe it is at least possible that the new idea is true. Moreover, an individual whose beliefs are not substantiated cannot be convinced of higher truth, cutting themselves off from God’s messengers, because it is impossible to argue against an irrationally held position.³⁸

Asking questions is among the most important skills we must develop in our quest to know God. Good askers have confidence in God’s willingness to respond. They are suspicious of what others say. They realize that the vast majority of people have no idea what they are talking about most of the time. They are also suspicious of what they already believe they know. They are willing to be wrong. They are able to suspend judgment on an issue until more facts are gathered. Because their belief is constructed based on their observations over time, they expect that their belief will change as they make more observations.

Each principle stands or falls on its own. It is a false tradition to assume that because one principle is true, all principles bundled together by some person or group are also true.³⁹ The truthfulness of the Book of Mormon does not imply that everything the church ever did or will do is inspired by God any more than the Constitution being inspired implies that everything the U.S. government did or will do is inspired. We must learn how to ask specific questions, which might have limited application.

We make a grave mistake when we assume that questioning leads to doubts. In reality, questioning not only leads to faith, but it is the only path that leads to faith, since faith cannot be had in false principles, and the only way to establish which principles are true is to ask God.

We ought to believe what we have found to be true, not evaluate what is true based on what we already believe.⁴⁰ Moses’ journey closer to God was punctuated with moments where he learned things he had never before supposed. We are no different. We progress towards God not only by learning new things but also by rejecting old things we previously believed in that are false. If we limit our investigation to what we already believe to be true, we will never approach closer to God than we currently are.