A generation ago in a hotly contested election, those seeking to unseat the incumbent president seized upon the effects of a recession as a way to differentiate themselves from their political opponents. A brilliant political strategist coined the phrase “It’s the economy, stupid” as a rallying cry. The phrase had a great deal of power with voters, as it sent a short, pithy message that could not be misunderstood. The incumbent lost, the opposition won, and the era of the Clinton presidency was born.
Some people look at the verbiage used in the phrase—particularly the use of the word stupid—and take offense. They think it is mean. They think it is cruel. They think it is insensitive. They think it is snarky. But, consider two facts: First, the phrase wasn’t directed at the opposition; by some accounts it was directed by James Carville (the political strategist) at the candidate he was advising (Bill Clinton). It was to force focus in his campaign, not to denigrate the opposition’s campaign. Second, the phrase was much more memorable and “focusing” than any alternative. (Could anyone really see “It’s the economy, guys!” or “It really is the economy!” being as successful in forcing focus?)
Fast forward to today, in a different venue only of interest to Mormons on the Internet, and we see a couple of people who are either leaving the Church or threatened with expulsion from the Church because of their participation in and responsibility for the MormonThink website. Only a month or so ago, the founder of MormonThink resigned his membership in the Church after facing the possibility of a disciplinary council for apostasy.
In a recent posting on the MormonThink website, the anonymous founder shared with readers his final e-mail letter to his stake president with regards to his membership. He recounts how his efforts had only the innocuous-sounding goal of “helping Mormon scholars … share their studies with others interested in learning” about the Church’s history. The letter indicates that the founder asked his stake president, “many times, what part of the website is untrue.”
In fact, that seems to be a large focus of what the founder desired—for the stake president to point out factual inaccuracies at MormonThink. That theme is carried on by David Twede, the person to whom MormonThink’s founder handed the reins for the website. In a letter to his stake president Mr. Twede said the following:
I would like to have discussions with you as local church leaders about what at Mormonthink is untruthful and try to work with you to create a website that can present accurate, open, honest and noteworthy information that can aid member and non-member alike in exercising free will about what they believe.
The misunderstanding is clearly evident, at least to me, as I can pretty well guarantee that the stake president is not interested in creating any website to do any such thing that Mr. Twede suggests. Why? Because while facts are important, it isn’t only about the facts. If I was asked about the reason by Twede’s stake president, I’d be tempted to answer with a Carville paraphrase: “It’s the interpretation, stupid!” I doubt I would need to answer that way, however. I suspect that the stake president understands this; it is MormonThink’s founder and Mr. Twede who don’t apparently get it.
Facts could be amassed all year long and it wouldn’t amount to a hill of beans. In fact, the scholars referenced by MormonThink’s founder and Mr. Twede have spent large parts of their professional lives amassing such facts. Yet, most of them haven’t been disciplined. Why? Because it’s not about facts—it’s about interpretation of the facts.
The founder’s stake president seemingly understands this nuance, as well. The founder stated, in his letter to his stake president:
You said that MT is “anti-Mormon, anti-Joseph Smith and anti-LDS Leadership”. However, you never said it wasn’t true.
Based on this reported statement of the stake president, he knew the issue wasn’t about the facts; the issue was about the interpretation of the facts. Even if the facts on the website are correct, the site could still be “anti-Mormon, anti-Joseph Smith and anti-LDS Leadership” based on the interpretation of those facts.
The founder of MormonThink made a very cogent point in his letter when he asked, “Essentially, isn’t learning about the gospel merely a search for truth?” It is, indeed, a search for truth, but one should not assume that facts are the sum of truth. A simple example: If I point out the fact that a friend of mine is morbidly obese, does that constitute truth? Perhaps, but it is not the whole truth. Such a fact leads to other questions, such as why he is obese. Some may hear the one fact (about the obesity) and conclude that my friend is an overeater and needs to go on a diet and exercise more. One only need to talk to my friend to find out, however, that doctors have attributed the obesity to steroid medications used to treat a chronic illness and have said that diet and exercise won’t help the situation.
In the case of my friend, a collection of some facts doesn’t speak the whole truth, and the premature conclusions drawn by some about his obesity are based on how they choose to interpret the facts they think they know. Their interpretation couldn’t be further from the truth, yet they remain secure in their belief that they understand the situation and possess the truth.
It is, unfortunately, the same way with virtually any set of facts—they are open to interpretation. The problem with MormonThink isn’t with the set of facts they choose to highlight; it is with the interpretations that they draw from those facts. The site’s founder and Mr. Twede repeatedly ask for factual errors to be pointed out, but they stay very far away from a discussion of the interpretations that they and other MormonThink contributors draw and present. This, I suspect, is where the basis of apostasy lies—with the presentation of facts to fit an interpretation that is deeply critical of and inherently hostile to the truth claims of the Church.
(For those interested in some facts that the editors at MormonThink don’t mention, as well as some of the interpretive problems they present, there is always the FAIR wiki. One often hears from MormonThink editors and fans of MormonThink that FAIR can’t muster any good response to what MormonThink presents, but this is false. FAIR has looked at the same facts and issues as MormonThink—for much longer than MormonThink has been in existence—and comes to different conclusions based on those same facts.)
I know there is a popular societal meme that posits that “the facts speak for themselves,” but this is not true. Were it true, then historians, lawyers, and advertisers would all be out of work. Were it true, scientists could stop hypothesizing and “think tanks” could shut their doors. Were it true, people would never have differing opinions about any given set of facts. Were it true, MormonThink would present the same faithful perspective that FAIR does. Were it true, MormonThink’s founder would not have run afoul of his stake president and Mr. Twede would not be running into trouble with his.
Humans can look at the same facts and come, in good conscience, to different conclusions based on different interpretations of those facts. If the founder and editors of MormonThink come to different conclusions than the Church does based on examination of the same sets of facts, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that those in the Church would expel them—especially when they attempt to bolster their credibility by claiming to be active Church members. If those expelled changed their interpretation to be more similar to how the Church interprets the facts, then I have no doubt they would be welcomed back.
Stop focusing on supposed facts alone. It’s the interpretation, guys.
I’m reminded of some remarks by Elder Boyd K. Packer that are applicable here:
Not all truth is useful. In other words, it may not help anything, but only hurt. Hypothetically, I could tell my wife that I think her favorite dress is ugly (the “truth”), but is that useful to us? Is it useful to our relationship? Does it promote our love for one another? Might it damage our companionship, and perhaps our eternal union? It’s possible.
Furthermore, facts alone do not present us with truth. As you’ve pointed out, there are facts, and then there are interpretations of facts. Facts alone don’t cut it. I’m not even sure many of those things we call “facts” are truly facts. What we think are historical “facts” often come to us through writing. Someone wrote them down, with their own perceptions, biases, and ideas. I perceive that we can’t deal in absolute facts from history, unless we were present to observe them, and even then there are some that would say that our perceptions, even our physical senses, are not good judges of the reality around us, that they are altered by life’s experiences. Our brains do an awful good job of creating much of what we would deem our “reality.” So we must always interpret the facts.
There is a time to every purpose under heaven (Eccl. 3:1). Even though facts may present the truth, even the absolute truth, it is not a good, or right, or virtuous thing to be presented with them in every circumstance. The temple is a perfect example. There is an abundance of truth presented in the temple, but it is not proper that certain aspects of it are taken out of that context and environment. As President Packer has noted elsewhere, it might not only be not understood, but misunderstood (which is part of what might have got Br. Twede in trouble). Mitt Romney might wear undergarments, but why should that have any bearing whatsoever on his candidacy for presidency? In the context of his presidency, it should not matter in the slightest. This “truth” is irrelevant.
Truth is only good inasmuch as it is proper and virtuous for the context in which it is presented. In that sense, truth only comes from God when it is found in such a manner (Alma 5:40; Moroni 7:12; Omni 1:25). Are there facts that come from the devil? Certainly. He has plenty of facts. But it is most likely evil when he presents them to us in an inappropriate context and gives us his interpretation. It is only truth that comes from God that will help lead us back to Him.
Thanks Allan for this post. I’m stunned at the audacity of the Mormonthink editors that they feel they are unworthy of censure and excommunication. From my reading of their interpretation of Church history, they want to create as much damage as possible. Perhaps they thought they could do this more effectively from within, rather than from without the Church, like a wolf in sheep’s clothing. It’s not their facts that concern me, but their paradigm which colours their interpretation. They have a biased interpretation and never try to explore the opposing views. For this reason they are not a repository of truth, but a repository of dogma. As an example, I recall investigating some statements made by David O McKay regarding protecting ones virtue, which had offended a person I home teach. I googled the matter and hit upon Morminthink. They had several quotes presented by past Presidents that suggested that dying for one’s virtue was a noble act. Yes, the quotes were factual. What was not factual was their interpretation. They tried to manipulate the reader by suggesting that “wouldn’t you prefer to have a living daughter who’s been violated, that one who died trying to protect her virtue”? Then they put the ultimate spin on it by suggesting that Mormon women may have died following this counsel from their leaders. Thus they give the impression that it is the faithful Mormon woman’s fault for being murdered, nothing to do with the perpetrator. It only takes a few moments to see the fallacy in their argument. I thought that if this is the level of their scholarship then the “think” part of their website is sorely lacking.
It’s typical of anti-Mormons (and Mormon Think certainly falls in that category) to decide that a “fact” is always and only something that can be taken as negative toward the church. Then any attempt to show that the fact can be interpreted in different ways or is not as clearcut as they portray, is labeled “refusing to confront the facts” or “ignoring the facts”. You can’t win an argument with people who are setting up the terms of the debate in their own favor. But you can notice that they are publicly claiming disbelief in the tenets of their own religion, and therefore no longer belong in it!
Nice essay.
A great example of your point is the recent and ongoing debate between Michael Quinn and Brian Hales on Joseph Smith’s polygamy. They both use and refer to much the same set of facts, but their interpretations are wildly different.
Quinn believes that Joseph was an over-sexed lecher, and so all his interpretations of the facts point to that conclusion.
Hales does a much better job of correlating the different facts and categories of facts to come to the quite different conclusion that Joseph was doing his best to follow God’s command as he understood it. Hales also uses a set of facts which Quinn ignores; the revelations. Whether those came from God or Joseph Smith, they certainly are pertinent to what was in Joseph’s head at the time.
As you say, facts do not speak for themselves, and are not the same thing as truth.
Thank you for a cogent exposition of this point.