taking positions so dogmatic as to stifle the honest and thoughtful inquiries

Henry Eyring

Science and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe in the ability of ‘honest and thoughtful inquiry’ to break through entrenched dogmas that define a community’s beliefs. However, both can succumb to respect for historical decisions to the point that ideas become dogmatic in that no other thinkers are allowed to question the status quo. If we all held to the status quo, we would still be on a flat earth, ignoring that Christ ever came. Sincere questioning and answering are needed to pull us out of our dogmatic beliefs.

Often we generalize the church principles as eternal and never changing, to which some react negatively when the principles change based on new reasoning and inquiry. In a similar generalization, we often think that science is always changing in a positive advance to rigorous justified principles. If we engage science outside of K-12 schooling, we will see science seesaw back and forth on views. Science and The Church use a very similar process and face similar difficulties as each seeks eternal truths on our journey through time.

The restoration process

In The Church, we call this process the restoration, and we listen to our leaders testify that the restoration didn’t happen once in the 1800s but that it continues today. President Nelson famously said,

We’re witnesses to a process of restoration. If you think the Church has been fully restored, you’re just seeing the beginning. There is much more to come. … Wait till next year. And then the next year. Eat your vitamin pills. Get your rest. It’s going to be exciting.

Latter-day Saints are all trained that the restoration starts with asking questions, which then moves through conjecture and reasoning where it culminates with confirmatory revelation. In the last two years, we have watched how many long-standing traditions in The Church have changed using the restoration process. Many of these changes address principles and topics within The Church, not apostate beliefs before the 1830s. Watch the video to see how many changes have happened.

Rethinking how we care for each other by changing home teaching to ministering doesn’t reach anybody’s radar as a massive change. Nor does changing how we meet to worship and learn together. Removing all references to Mormon as a name or brand for our church was a little bit bigger. President Nelson provided more scriptural references and leveraged revalation to justify this change from the standard that many of the previous prophets had used and even endorsed (remember Meet the Mormons). Has Christ still been at the center of The Church since the beginning and through our day? Yes. But, the restoration process continues to bring new changes to previous conclusions from prophets, and those advances come from asking thoughtful questions.

The scientific process

In science, we describe the scientific method as the process of asking and answering questions. From Wikipedia, we read, ‘The overall process involves making conjectures (hypotheses), deriving predictions from them as logical consequences, and then carrying out experiments based on those predictions to determine whether the original conjecture was correct.’ You can Google it and see so many images outlining the steps.

When the scientific literature has repeated references to standard principles, it is tough to get governments or institutions to pay for research that contradicts that evidence. Do a Google search or literature review on the healthiness of eggs in the human diet. It will make your head spin trying to figure out what science says about eggs. One great example that we just lived through results from the rejection of miasma theory and the airborne transmission of COVID-19. Here is a quote from a Reuters article on the issue the World Health Organization (WHO) had.

Jimenez and other experts in aerosol transmission have said the WHO is holding too dearly to the notion that germs are spread primarily through contact with a contaminated person or object. That idea was a foundation of modern medicine, and explicitly rejected the obsolete miasma theory that originated in the Middle Ages, postulating that poisonous, foul-smelling vapors made up of decaying matter caused diseases such as cholera and the Black Death.

Change the topic, and the above quote sounds like something we would expect to explain a Catholic ritual or belief, not science’s progress.

Jimenez and other experts in [church history] have said the [Vatican] is holding too dearly to the notion that [God is without body, parts, or passion]. That idea was a foundation of modern [theology], and explicitly rejected the obsolete [non-Greek] theory that originated in the Middle Ages postulating that a poisonous, foul-smelling [body] made up of decaying matter [could be connected to a God].

I think many of us saw the WHO’s back and forth on masks as them not being able to make up their mind simply due to politics. However, it was primarily them not wanting to change their minds on how Coronaviruses could be transmitted. Like COVID-19, much of science is not isolated from society and politics. Max Planck proposed that, ‘A great scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.’

I spent a decade at a Department of Energy research institution working under contracts with the Department of Defense, Department of Energy, and Environmental Protection Agency. I saw some significant advances in science during that time. However, I also watched strong voices with purse strings stifle innovation and maintain the status quo.

Challenging dogma

I realize that I have shared two short examples to make a pretty strong case that science and religion are not too different when it comes to dogmatic thinking. Maybe you are not convinced. Regardless of the domain, we need to allow questioning. Clearly, some questions are not worth providing millions of dollars to research or study manuals in Sunday school to address. However, we must provide space where novel questions that are answerable and important to our communities can be addressed. Any group, including the Lord’s people, will end up in an unsustainable dogmatic loop if it stigmatizes questioning.

Can I propose two rules to restrain and change dogmatic beliefs?

Leadership by councils

Howard W. Hunter, as the prophet of The Church, quoted Joseph F. Smith on the principle of prophetic leadership.

I propose that my counselors and fellow Presidents in the First Presidency shall share with me in the responsibility of every act which I shall perform in this capacity. I do not propose to take the reins in my own hands to do as I please; but I propose to do as my brethren and I agree upon and as the Spirit of the Lord manifests to us. I have always held, and do hold, and trust I always shall hold, that it is wrong for one man to exercise all the authority and power of presidency in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I dare not assume such a responsibility, and I will not, so long as I can have men like these to stand by and counsel with me in the labors we have to perform and in doing all those things that shall tend to the peace, advancement and happiness of the people of God and the building up of Zion.

The Lord never did intend that one man should have all power, and for that reason He has placed in His Church Presidents, Apostles, High Priests, Seventies, Elders and the various offices of the Lesser Priesthood, all of which are essential in their order and place according to the authority bestowed on them (in Conference Report, Oct.–Nov. 1901, p. 82).

All tend to give our CEO, President, or Boss too much authority. For Joseph F. Smith’s message to work, his counselors must recognize that they are not merely rubber stamps. I remember an experience at the Department of Energy Laboratory, where I worked previously, highlighting this issue. The Laboratory’s Director (Mike Kluse) sent out a pretty scathing email about his leadership team after getting the results back from a survey of the laboratory employees. He was upset that his leadership team told him what he wanted to hear instead of what was being experienced by his employees in their councils. It was a scathing rebuke of his executive board. Ineffective committees become echo chambers of the leader’s views. Effective councils stifle dogmatic beliefs held by a few.

Remembering the two great commandments

This week I was talking with a friend about how to combat our personal dogmatic beliefs. He admitted that he hadn’t thought about it too much but responded, ‘If it challenges the two great commandments, then it is probably dogmatic.’ I am fascinated with that response and its implications. Some of the worst dogmatic beliefs support one of the two commandments but ignores the other. However, if we use both commandments to validate our thoughts, we will discover those beliefs that our community holds and that we individually keep, which are dogmatic. Does our belief promote the love of God and our fellow man? Does our belief denigrate our fellow man or God? In answering those questions, we can filter the wheat from the dogma.

Klan we talk?

In this Ted Talk, we hear the fantastic story about a black man’s friendship with the leader of the Klu Klux Klan. I am amazed at how both parties exemplify understanding and the ability to leave their dogmatic beliefs. The story is dramatic in how the Klan leader ends up leaving the Klan. However, Daryl Davis’ willingness to understand and fight his own potential dogmas is also a vital part of the story.

As you listen to the Klan leader talk, the following quote resonates.

We all have a built-in cognitive bias to agree with what others around us believe, even if the evidence before our eyes tells us otherwise. At some level we all value group acceptance, sometimes even over reality itself. But if we care about truth, we must fight against this.¹

Your discovery

I am not here suggesting that we embrace false equivalence, or that the truth probably lies somewhere between political ideologies. The halfway point between truth and error is still error. But I am suggesting that at some level all ideologies are an enemy of the process by which truth is discovered.¹

An ominous warning. When you do confront one of your dogmas, it will make you dizzy. You will feel off-kilter and use that uneasiness as a mental argument to not engage the dogma’s validity. You may say something like ‘They don’t do research like me,’ ‘They don’t have the spirit,’ or ‘They get their information from a biased source.’ Yes, you will justify the dizziness as a sign that the topic is not worth the conversation, and you will want to disengage too early. If you do that, neither party will improve in their understanding.

Groups outperform individuals. And interactive, deliberative groups outperform passive ones. When we open our ideas up to group scrutiny, this affords us the best chance of finding the right answer. And when we are looking for the truth, critical thinking, skepticism, and subjecting our ideas to the scrutiny of others works better than anything else.

A friend of mine pushed me into this dizzy space last week. I could feel myself saying things like the following in less than a few seconds.

1. ‘I remember thinking he was a good guy…’
2. ‘I have defended him in the past…’
3. ‘What will my friends think…?’
4. ‘But my parents thought he was a good guy when I was a kid…’
5. ‘Do I want to do the work to figure out if I should change my belief?’
6. ‘I will think about it later…’

The work to figure out if my belief was a dogma felt overwhelming and not worth it for the topic at hand. I wanted to make sure I didn’t sign up to listen to others with dogmatic beliefs contrary to mine. I wanted to find facts, and I wasn’t sure how to do that. So, I put the topic on the shelf for now. However, I placed it on the shelf titled ‘Dogma Storage’ until I figure out if it needs to be brought back to the kitchen pantry for daily use and defense.

I am grateful for the diverse friend group that keeps me focused on the process of discovering my dogma landmines as I march through life. I know we all don’t believe the same, but we push each other to think about our cherished principles.

Can we take some time to figure out which beliefs we should hold to and which we should discard? Can we allow ourselves to ask ‘honest and thoughtful’ questions? I know it will benefit our lives. I have watched my faith grow as I have been able to release ownership of principles that are just too costly to maintain. It has given me more time to focus on those truths that do endure.

• dogma
• general
• truth
• video