Discussion Group Report

"He (Galileo) had realized at last that the authorities were not interested in truth, but only in authority."

--De Santillana

"In the decline of Christianity over the past 900 years no incident has so symbolized the struggle between faith and rationality as has the trial of Galileo (1564-1642)," psychiatrist Robert E. Anderson pointed out in a speech at the Sunstone Symposium in Salt Lake City this past August. "With his development of the telescope and discovery of the moon-like phases of Venus, he concluded that the sun was the center of the universe and challenged the literal interpretation of the Bible."

Refusing to follow the orders of the church fathers to present his views as only a hypothesis and to give equal weight in his writings to the traditional view of the universe and, after being threatened with torture, he was condemned to imprisonment in his house until he died nine years later. He is universally recognized as the father of modern science and his trial as the cause celebre of the twin conflicts of faith versus reason, obedience versus individual freedom.

"In the more than three centuries since Galileo," Anderson continues, "the results of science have been so profound and far-reaching that we in the west have come to suspect all supernatural claims and to look for other more rational explanations first. Most religions have accommodated the discoveries of science, but many fundamental religions maintain their belief in the supernatural by frequent appeals to so-called 'groupthink.' Within such religious groups praise is given for maintaining a belief without external evidence and greatest praise in holding firm to those beliefs despite considerable contradictory evidence. The conflicts of faith versus rationality versus free inquiry have become central in the dilemmas facing the rationalist Mormon, and his or her dilemma can be seen as part of an ongoing history of the struggle between reason and fundamentalism. If rationality casts doubt, the fundamentalist response is usually increased dogmatism and demand for submission. For the rationalist Mormon, the problem has become dogmatism in the face of compelling contradictory information or evidences."

In 1853, Mormon leader Brigham Young began to teach that God was still progressing in knowledge and had come to earth as Adam to father his spiritual offspring physically. Apostle Orson Pratt, wanting to reconcile Mormon scriptures with the Bible, in contradiction to Young's doctrine, taught the omniscience of God, not his personhood. Young's response was that Pratt's teaching was a lie that was "false as hell."

Years later Pratt recanted, confessing, repenting, and capitulating. "If the prophet of the living God, who is my standard, lays down a principle in philosophy or science we must bow. We must yield."

In a conflict that began as a difference of opinion, Young shifted the debate to submission to authority and demanded that Pratt recognize his right as prophet of the church to declare doctrine. Yet today the majority of church leaders hold to Pratt's views on divine omniscience. Teaching Adam-God can result in excommunication. Does salvation include the surrender of rational thinking to authorities who disagree among themselves?

"Yet I think he (Pratt) pointed a possible theoretical and practical direction for solving the problem of Mormon fundamentalism by rising above it and focusing instead on the virtues taught," comments Anderson. Several approaches are being used by Mormon rationalists in an effort to implement Anderson's suggestion: holding that the Book of Mormon is authentic history but that Joseph Smith expanded on it by adding elements of his environment, maintaining that the book has no historical value but should be revered for its teachings, or limiting one's involvement to social or charitable activities in the church. Critics attack these approaches as compromised positions; they wonder why something that is not what it purports to be should be revered.

"In the final analysis, adherence to the virtues of Mormonism is not a rationalist escape, for the church sometimes seems to take a dim view of some of the virtues that the rationalist Mormon considers critical: a fullness of truth, wisdom and knowledge, unfettered access to information and pluralistic discussions." Censored history, the rewriting and alteration of history, locked archival doors, and condemnations of study groups are anathema to a rationalist.

The church can and is forcing rationalist members to back away and separate themselves. These people are using vigorous, firm or simply impassive methods of separation: 1) Shifting to another form of Christianity, which some doubting Mormons see as changing one form of questionable irrationality to a less organized one. 2) Firm withdrawal by removal from the membership rolls of the church, accompanied by an indifferent, uninterested attitude toward the church. 3) By anger; or passive withdrawal, simply becoming inactive (probably the most common form) which leaves one's options open and does not directly attack friends and/or their beliefs but which may lead to doubt, guilt, remorse, or uneasiness about their standing with God.

Anderson defines well the plight of the Mormon rationalist, and calls for him to work to change the direction of the church flock toward expanded tolerance and keeping outspoken independent thinkers within the fold. "Of those of us who have a belief in Jesus as the son of God, we think he will be pleased with our work, for he defied the immorality and hypocrisy of religious leaders in his day, and within the Book of Mormon he condemned the church of the medieval times for its abuse of power. We wait on him and await his return."

Yet, while decrying fundamentalism for having no historical or scientific base, Anderson inexplicably looks to a miraculous, supernatural deliverance for humans, an expectation that also has no historical or scientific base and no evidence to support it in objective reality.