Faith and Doubt as Partners in Mormon History

Faith and Doubt as Partners in Mormon History

1 Faith and Doubt as Partners in Mormon History When Leonard gave the first of these lectures in 1995 he used the title, “Faith and Intellect as Partners in Mormon History.” With full attribution to him, I have given my lecture a title differing from his by only one word: “Faith and Doubt as Partners in Mormon History.” Faith and doubt are two sides of the same coin, the interplay between the two is essential to a complete religious life, and scholars are uniquely qualified to leverage the inherent value of doubt. When they succeed, their articles and books don’t add bricks to existing paradigms; they change those paradigms , thereby becoming agents in Mormonism’s foundational tenet: “continuing revelation.” Leonard grew up on a farm in Twin Falls, Idaho, isolated enough from the world that when he arrived in the Big City—Moscow, Idaho—to begin college at the University of Idaho, he encountered three total novelties : milkshakes, Coca Cola, and intellectual struggle. (I listed those in random order.) His intellectual innocence was challenged during the first semester. The class was biology; the subject was biological evolution. Although the LDS Church did not—and still does not—have an official, doctrinal position on evolution, influential church authorities who sat at high levels were unrestrained in condemning it in the strongest terms, not bothering to nuance their statements as personal opinion rather than official policy. As a result, church members, particularly in rural regions, were often of the impression that evolution was not only incorrect, but evil. Leonard was of that impression. Bombarded in his college classes by science that cast doubt on things he had been taught in church, he turned for help to George Tanner, director of the LDS Institute of Religion. Leonard recalled, He attempted to expose us to the very best religious scholarship and learning, and his superiors gave him complete freedom in determining the course of study and the most useful textbooks and readings . . . . Above all, he wanted us to realize that deep religious faith can be perfectly consistent with genuine academic scholarship. His policy was one of intellectual 2 Arrington Mormon History Lecture openness, one fully supported by Elder [Joseph] Merrill and, at that time, by Elder [John] Widtsoe and the First Presidency. George was a “liberal” and not afraid to declare it. “Liberals,” he said, “are people who are not afraid to think independently, even though this thinking may lead in a little different direction from orthodox Mormon teaching.”1 Decades later, Tanner recalled their first meeting: I said, “Now Leonard, you’re not the first of our young men to come up here and get upset, and you certainly won’t be the last to come. But I want to tell you just a little bit of the way I’m looking at this thing. There are a lot of classes here at the University in which evolution will appear . . . . There will be so many of the courses you take that evolution will simply be taken for granted, and for someone to completely try to dodge the question of evolution is just quite out of the question and can’t be done . . . . This institution thinks that the courses being taught are good or they wouldn’t put them in. So why don’t you go ahead and study here . . . and when you’re through with it, you’ll be so much better prepared then to decide whether evolution is good than to pre-judge it . . . . If you don’t want to believe it, that’s up to you.” . . .That was forty years ago, but I remember that conversation very vividly.2 The lesson took, and the following semester, in a paper for his freshman English class entitled “Two Arringtons,” he wrote words that set him apart not only from his age peers, but also from the vast majority of his coreligionists both then and now: I am not the same Leonard Arrington I used to be. I can now make that statement with fairness both to my former self and to my present self. It would be well to compare these two selves at this stage of my college career—the Leonard Arrington that left his hopeful parents for college, and the Leonard Arrington that will go back home for the first time this June after almost a year of college influence and training . . . . The major change has come about through my acceptance of much of the teachings of science in preference...