True Doctrine Bears Fruit

The Savior taught that true doctrine can be proven by the fruits it produces.¹ 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.²

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.³ 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.⁴ 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.