Be Careful Which Expert You Trust
10:35 PM
So, It's been a
while since I've written, and at the risk of sounding like a teenager begging
for an absence excusal…I promise there's a good reason. At the end of last year
I finished a master's degree and have just begun coursework for a Ph.D. I say
this not to brag or boast my credentials; if fact, I want to do quite the
opposite.
There seems to be an
undue trust placed in expert opinion today. Whether in the political arena, the
social arena, or the religious arena, when a person has a graduate degree of
some kind often the perception of the "rightness" of their opinion
skyrockets. We often treat them as if their word is fact because it comes from
someone who "knows." In recent years this has become quite in vogue
with critics of the Church; they attach their credentials to their name which,
they implicitly argue, makes their view more truthful.
However, one thing
I've learned quite intimately as I've gone through my graduate schooling is
just what a graduate degree is, and just what it is not.
A graduate degree is a certification of broader thinking in a specific field of study with an
emphasis in one small part of that field. In the beginning, coursework is generally designed to introduce to the
student, as much as possible, to the entire spectrum of thought or opinion
within the field.
A graduate degree is not,
however, proof that the student is a certified master of each of these arenas of
thought or opinion. Coursework covers breadth, not depth. The goal is for a
student to survey the scenery within a field, and then pick from that landscape
a specific direction in which she would like to travel with her research.
Further, once that
specific direction is chosen, that's all the student focusses on. Where the
beginning of the degree is aimed at learning a little about a lot, the thesis
or dissertation work is aimed at researching a lot about a little. Thus the
student does become master of something,
but just of that one thing!
As an example, the
coursework in my religious studies degree exposed me to some of the most
important thinkers and writers in religious and, especially, Mormon history and
thought. Unfortunately the depth of the field is such that for every one author I read I became aware of twenty others that had written or were writing
about the same topic which I didn't read. In a sense, the more I got to know,
the more I realized that I didn't know!
So I picked a
direction which I had to narrow drastically. I started with the topic of Church
business and finances, but that was too broad. I couldn't read everything that
had been written and could not, in the time I had, become a "master"
of the field. So I narrowed it down to tithing. Still too broad. How about
tithing during the debt crisis of 1899? Too broad. Lorenzo Snow's
administration during the debt crisis of 1899 as it pertained to tithing? Too
broad. So I settled for becoming a master of Lorenzo Snow's tithing reemphasis
trip to St. George in mid-1899 as seen through lens of contemporary reporters,
diarists, and writers.
So this makes me an
expert, right? Well sure, if we're talking specifically about what Lorenzo Snow said about one topic on his trek to and from St. George over 100 years ago. Getting a graduate degree
doesn't mean you're an expert on everything; it means you are an expert on one,
small, very narrow thing. And that expertise, as helpful as it may be in that
one field, is not necessarily transferable to other areas within that field,
let alone to other fields.
So what does all of
that mean? It means, at least, this: be careful who your "expert" is.
For all a graduate degree isn't, it is training in critical thinking and
analysis. When I read a critical article about Church doctrine, policy, or
especially history, I am always looking for who the writer quotes as his
expert. If it's Wikipedia, that's an obvious no go. But what if it's a very
literate, intelligent, socially charged activist with a Ph.D. in sociology or
psychology, do I trust them? Well, would you trust a (hopefully someday) fully
certified Ph.D.-in-educational-leadership me to represent you in court? Or
would you trust a passed-the-bar, top-of-her-class lawyer to perform your
bypass surgery? At the very least you might want to search for at least one
other opinion before you hand over the scalpel.
Perhaps Jacob from the Book of Mormon said it best:
There is, however,
an Expert with unlimited credentials and unending knowledge of the field.
Although there are countless witnesses to His knowledge, ability, and power He
allows anyone interested to meet with Him and experience His expertise for
themselves. He made all things, knows all things, can do all things, and
chooses to love us, and I like those credentials. I trust Him and I trust those
witnesses.
11 comments
I've already told you this, but I really like this one.
ReplyDeleteI love the thought behind this and I totally agree with it. Being skeptical should apply to all sources (Church approved sources included).
ReplyDeleteMy concern is that this type of article reads very much as "Don't trust those anti-mormon sources out there", and contributes to a culture that is blaming people for learning that they have been taught inaccurate church history from the church itself. And I think we have plenty of that going on right now from the top leaders of the church. We don't need more of that. We need more understanding for those who find their world view thown in crisis through no fault of their own!
For example, you talk about making sure that your "expert" is an expert in the right field. I don't know if there is anybody more qualified to talk about Egyptian Papyri than Robert Ritner. But what he has to say about the translation of the Book of Abraham is not favorable to what Joseph Smith claimed it was. Does the fact that it doesn't bolster the church's position mean that we should "be careful about trusting [him]?" I sure hope not.
That isn't to say that we should put all of our eggs into Ritner's basket either. Getting information from lots of well informed, qualified experts is a good idea. But the "doubt your sources" rhetoric in this case should probably mean that you doubt the story that you've been told by leaders of the church who have no training at all in egyptology. Not that you should doubt the scholars who have dedicated their lives to understand it.
If the goal of this post is to say "question EVERY source" and that logic is applied equally to church approved sources as well as those critical of the church then I think it is a great message that should be shared far and wide. But I have this nagging feeling that this isn't what the poster means. I hope I'm wrong!
In either case I'll second your message. Be careful in which experts you trust. Be skeptical of everything. And let honest answers lead you where they will. Like J. Reuben Clark said. “If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed.”
Just a quick note on the above comment - Robert Ritner is definitely qualified to talk about Egyptian papyri, there's no question about that. And, having published a translation of the Joseph Smith papyri, he obviously can tell you about that specific collection as well. However, when it comes to the Book of Abraham, and specifically it's origins and translation, Ritner is only valuable insofar as understanding what the extant papyri say. Because historical evidence and eyewitness accounts indicate that the Book of Abraham was written on a separate scroll, the value of Ritner is, though helpful in some respects, limited.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteQuinten I don't disagree with you. The Ritner example above is just one example to illustrate my point.
DeleteAs a side note, while we might not have ALL of the scrolls that may have been used in translating the BoA, the scrolls that we do have include what appear to be "translations" of characters that do come from the remaining scrolls and text that matches parts of The BoA. We also have Joseph's "translation" of 3 characters in the facsimiles, and Egyptologist universally say that those “translations” are also incorrect. So to simply write off criticisms of The BoA because "we don't have all the scrolls" is, at best, an incomplete explanation.
But my main point is that not all of the criticism of the church is coming from the Jeremy Runnells of the world that can simply be dismissed as “uneducated”. There are a lot of well educated scholars who take issue with truth claims of the church. 2 more examples:
Dr. Michael Coe was a professor of Anthropology at Yale University and an expert in Mayan culture. It would be hard to argue that he is not credible when he talks about ancient american culture in BoM times. Yet his assessment is that the claims made that the BoM is a historical record are untenable from an anthropological standpoint. So, again, are we to ignore this expert because we don't like what he has to say? If so you can’t ignore it because he isn’t qualified.
You don't even have to go outside of the church to find criticisms of it. Look at active member and patriarch Richard Bushman who recently said " I think that for the Church to remain strong it has to reconstruct its narrative. The dominant narrative is not true; it can't be sustained." He also confirmed in Rough Stone Rolling that many things that had been dismissed as "anti-mormon lies" were actually historically accurate.
I don't say any of this to attack the church. Rather I say this in defense of those who find their world thrown into turmoil through no fault of their own. The overwhelming message that those going through a faith crisis get is "doubt your doubts" or in the case of this post "doubt your experts”. That is all good and well as long as that skepticism is applied universally. But as soon as you start to privilege church approved sources over other scholarly sources you lose me. Because the church has shown over and over again that their attitude is “not all things that are true are useful”. The church has had no problem obfuscating anything that didn’t match the whitewashed narrative that they wanted to tell. And while I’ll applaud them for make some very small steps toward transparency, they still have a LONG way to go.
The thing that I often find ironic is that the church covers up so much stuff that doesn’t need to be. Why don’t we talk about the fact that Joseph Smith had a gun in Carthage and fired back when the mob came? Do we really think that people wouldn’t understand a man trying to defend himself? But instead we persist in painting this picture of “a lamb going to the slaughter” and edit history to match that account. That is so stupid! Telling the true story of Carthage doesn’t take away anything from Joseph. But find me one approved church video that shows Joseph with a gun. I can’t find one. Pointless half truths. I don’t get it.
Perhaps the core of the church’s truth claims can be reconciled regardless of all of the problematic history. Clearly Bushman has found a way to reconcile being taught “a dominant narrative [that] is not true” with still believing in the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith. But there is far too much victim blaming happening in the church right now. What I want is for the church and it’s fully believing members to stop blaming those who have doubts after they find that accurate history doesn't fit with what they've been taught. Lets stop the victim blaming, and instead take responsibility for the mistakes that leaders in the church have made, and start to try to make it right!
Thank you for your considerate and considered response (although, I’m afraid I can never be “skeptical” of “cocoa” which I without hesitation trust and taste regularly.)
DeleteI agree with your extension of my argument, as long as it’s qualified along the following lines.
I would replace the work “skeptical” with “critical”. This may just be semantics, but skeptical seems to connote a predisposed and negative mindset. In other words, to be “skeptical of Church sources” is to go in expecting fabrication or falsehood. This seems to be quite the trend in the pop/pseudo history floating around Facebook and the blogosphere. We might call this the “underdog bias” where readers give far more credence to a critical point of view than to the traditional one, not because it was argued or supported better, but simply because it’s new and different. This sort of unbalanced skepticism is both unfair and un-academic.
To be critical, rather, means to be (even though it’s impossible in entirety) objectively evaluative of the argument or article regardless of its source. In other words, to be a critical reader of all sources means to be aware of a particular perspective’s strengths and limitations, explicit arguments and null arguments, evidential support or lack thereof, etc. I know you were making this exact point and I’m glad we agree!
The second qualification I would have about extending a critical eye has more to do with your response to Quinten’s post (which I now see that you’ve deleted and replaced—sorry if I’m not responding to the most recent of your points). It seems that often the extending of criticism in one direction carries with it a companion extension of trust in the other direction. So, being “skeptical” of scholars with more traditional leanings carries with it a trust of scholars with a more liberal leanings.
As a practical example, you are right to consider Ritner as a valuable and even essential perspective on the Joseph Smith papyri (as Quinten pointed out). However, to understand the current field of research you would also need to read John Gee, Kerry Muhlstein, Michael Rose, and probably at least a few others. As you read you see that, whereas Ritner begins with an assumptive dismal of revelation thus producing a consequent conclusion biased in one direction, other authors begin with different assumptions and thus find different results (of course they have bias too which is why a broad reading and academic criticism is necessary).
You might further see that, while Ritner is an expert Egyptologist, his is not necessarily a lifelong specialist in the Joseph Smith papyri whereas other and more recent publications come from authors with a longer tenure in the field and more specificity in their scope. While we of course wouldn’t ask someone with a juris doctorate to perform our brain surgery, so too would we be careful asking an orthopedic surgeon to operate. So too must we be careful to not overextend expertise from one specialist to another. Do we discount their critical viewpoint? Certainly not, but we do recognize the scope of their expertise and also recognize the weight of perspective on the other side. Again, we agree right?
---(Sorry, long reply; part 2 follows)---
---(Part 2, see above)---
DeleteThe third qualification is closely related. We certainly must be careful that we don’t overextend expertise thus giving someone undue trust for one reason or another. However, we must also be careful that we don’t under-extend expertise thus withholding trust where it could and maybe should be due. In this we may differ. I sense in your responses a degree of dissatisfaction with the way Church leaders have represented historical facts and I know yours is not a lonely perspective. However, we must recognize what Church leaders are experts of and what they aren’t.
Jacob explained in the Book of Mormon about his own writing, “For, for this intent have we written these things, that they may know that we a knew of Christ, and we had hope of his glory many hundred years before his coming; and not only we ourselves had a hope of his glory, but also all the holy prophets which were before us” (v. 4). In other words, a prophet’s job was, and today is, to bear witness of Jesus Christ. They are not historians and, thus, are allowed to make the same mistakes with history that so many of us make. They are not even necessarily theologians intent on mastering all of the minutia of doctrinal details. Rather, they are prophets in the way that John described in Revelation 19:10: “[T]he testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophesy.” The discussion of historical details, of what we know about what event and when it happened and when we knew what about what…all of that is in a circle hardly concentric with worship. Of course the LDS Church (like any other) has a history that can and should, to great benefit, be studied. But that study yields perspectives and details, not eternal truth. Davis Bitton said all of this much better here.
Perhaps the key and summative consideration is this: when we’re talking history then let’s make sure we’re being honest, critical, and as expansive as possible with our research. But when we’re talking religion, or maybe more specifically worship, those historians, however good or well-reasoned they may be, are not my experts. When I’m considering my relationship with God the historical details of the Joseph Smith papyri or the exact placement of the Book of Mormon lands are low on my list of questions. I want to know truth, not just details, and in that I trust God to be my Religious Expert. I have asked Him, in prayer and in practice, the veracity of this gospel I’m trying to learn and live and He has confirmed it an innumerable amount of times. I trust the teaching of modern prophets and apostles because acting on their collective counsel has made me and my family happier and more peaceful. I know what is true even if I’m critically assessing what is factual. And because the results are so consistently good, I’m not even interested in a second opinion.
Thanks for the reply Zach. My deletion and reposting didn't change any of the substance of my original post. I only pasted in the last paragraph by mistake the first time!
DeleteYou're right. We agree on so much here. And you frame your argument well. I can respect any opinion that is willing to examine an issue from all sides. I don't have any major qualms with your wanting to be critical rather than skeptical. I'd argue that which word you're more comfortable with probably says more about your starting position than anything else.
The thing that I do have a visceral response to is the reaction that so many members have to those of us who question. (And I'll admit that probably unfairly colors my reading of your post) You are correct that I come at this as somebody who finds myself deep in a faith crisis at the moment. And there are 2 things that hurt immensely about it.
The first is that I loved and believed in the doctrines of the church fully. And to have the belief that formed that foundation of my world ripped out from under me was incredibly painful. Perhaps it is all my fault for having an incorrect understanding of things to begin with, but it doesn't mitigate the pain and disorientation that comes with realizing that I had A LOT of things wrong about the church.
The second thing that hurts even more than the first is the reaction of the people that I love. I have repeatedly been told that I am "wandering in the mists of darkness", that I am "deceived by the devil" or, most recently, that I am like Korihor. I've been told these things even though I've never once attacked, or even openly questioned the church to any of these people. What is my most egregious sin that justifies this kind of treatment? Simply stating that I'm having a really hard time making all of the pieces fit like I used to. But just the fact that I have questions and doubts makes me so threatening to those around me that they feel it necessary to compare me to an anti-christ figure. The first time that I was told this was when when I explained to my dad that the translation of the Book of Mormon was accomplished primarily by placing a seer stone in a hat. Not two weeks later the church released pictures of the seer stone. But did that change my dad's opinion of the blackness of my soul? Nope. Still deceived. Doesn't matter if the facts back up what I said.
So while I completely understand where you're post comes from, I have to admit that it makes me cringe a little bit. Because every time that Elder Ballard gets up and asks "where will you go" or when a new blog post like this one starts being shared around Facebook it just means that I'm going to get a fresh set of new wounds from people I love. They will read it, sharpen it up and stab me with it like a spear. They do it with the best of intentions. They think they are being so helpful. But to be honest I'm not sure how many more puncture wounds I can handle. I'm tired, and angry, and hurt, and I didn't ask for any of this. I'm not sure that I can take the look on my wife's face when she feels threatened by my point of view one more time.
So anyway, I'm just rambling at this point. I certainly don't blame you for any of this. I really respect your approach to scholarship, and this post really is something I can get behind 100%. Regardless of which side you come down on after examining the evidence, the world could use more people who dig in and do the examination themselves rather than relying on somebody else to do the thinking for them.
Sorry for the rambling, and thanks for the thought provoking post!
I think I can empathize with you (my personal history is similar in some details, albeit different in the present) and I can certainly sympathize with you and extend my concern and well-wishes to you. I've been so grateful for both your comments and the respectful, fair, and intelligent tone you've used to convey them. I hope to hear from you more and get to know you better.
DeleteThe whole reason I started this blog was to address what I saw as a gap in the current discussion surrounding topics like this--to add a critical-yet-believing perspective. I write in hopes that it helps or at least creates these kinds of discussions. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help in any way. No spears here! And thanks again for your candor and perspective.
I appreciate this post. I think there are many individuals, many of whom believe they are experts, who want to tell us “what is not.” This approach is fine for choosing chocolate versus vanilla, but when it comes to finding eternal truth in a world full of diverse religious persuasions, the process of elimination is not a viable method for finding truth. Constantly raising questions and doubts can leave us chasing our own tail interminably in the search for truth. This brings us to the realization, however uncomfortable it may be, that we are going to have to decide to believe in something. We need to develop some faith in “what IS,” at least with sufficient duration and integrity to determine whether we are right.
ReplyDeleteThis shouldn’t be too alarming to us. After all, it’s the process followed by anyone who has achieved any degree of success or fulfillment in this world. If you have a friend who tells you yoga helps her feel more energetic and self-aware and you want to know whether it works for you, you’re not going to start by rounding up all the people who don’t like yoga and having a focus group. If you do, you’ve virtually guaranteed that you will either (1) not bother showing up for the first class, or (2) have such an awful experience when you go that you won’t return. Instead, you’ll exercise enough faith to give it an honest try. You may or may not find the benefits you’re looking for, but in either case, you’ll know the test was legitimate. You might have some doubts at the outset, but as long as you don’t go looking for new ones, you won’t bias your test.
This is really just the scientific method in operation. We first construct a hypothesis, which by definition requires faith, as it is something we are asserting to be true. We’re going to act as though it’s true until the test proves otherwise. After all, we’re trying to prove “what is,” not prove “what is not.”
This kind of test is provided to us in the Book of Mormon, in Moroni 10:3-5. We’re invited to (1) read the Book of Mormon, (2) ponder what we’ve read, and (3) ask God, with a sincere heart, real intent, and faith in Christ, if the book is true. We are promised an answer. The Spirit can cut through doubt and discord. However, the Spirit won’t beat down our self-erected barriers. This is why the test requires sincerity and at least a modicum of faith.
I performed this test for myself, and the answer came very clearly to me. It didn’t, however, come the first time I asked. I believe I needed to exercise some persistence to develop the required sincerity. Prior to that time, I hadn’t put my test together properly. In any case, I now have a strong testimony of the Book of Mormon. It shines for me like a beacon of truth in a world clouded with opinions about what isn’t true.
Thanks for reading and responding Dave! I have loved the discussion this has generated and thought your exploration and explanation of acquiring spiritual truth was insightful. "Constantly raising questions and doubts can leave us chasing our own tail interminably in the search for truth. This brings us to the realization, however uncomfortable it may be, that we are going to have to decide to believe in something. We need to develop some faith in “what IS,” at least with sufficient duration and integrity to determine whether we are right." Well said!
Delete