In response to my thoughts regarding the 2013 study on the LDS Faith Crisis, I had someone suggest that I read a talk by Lawrence E Corbridge.
After a quick Google search, I found the talk they were referring to and wanted to share some thoughts on it.
Here is the relevent exerpt from Corbridge's 2022 BYU devotional:
----------
Primary Questions and Secondary Questions:
Begin by answering the primary questions. There are primary questions and there are secondary questions. Answer the primary questions first. Not all questions are equal and not all truths are equal. The primary questions are the most important. Everything else is subordinate. There are only a few primary questions. I will mention four of them.
1. Is there a God who is our Father?
2. Is Jesus Christ the Son of God, the Savior of the world?
3. Was Joseph Smith a prophet?
4. Is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints the kingdom of God on the earth?
By contrast, the secondary questions are unending. They include questions about Church history, polygamy, people of African descent and the priesthood, women and the priesthood, how the Book of Mormon was translated, the Pearl of Great Price, DNA and the Book of Mormon, gay marriage, the different accounts of the First Vision, and on and on.
https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/lawrence-e-corbridge/stand-for-ever/
----------
Okay... Wow.
That is a lot to take in.
Upon reading his remarks, I immediately found the video footage and shared it on social media to gauge a general response.
And I have to say, some of the comments absolutely hit the nail on the head with what the issues within this talk were.
This approach, presented by Corbridge, creates a false dichotomy between what it deems "primary" and "secondary" questions, which diminishes the importance of historical and doctrinal evidence in forming a coherent belief system.
Here's why:
1. Primary and Secondary Questions Are Interconnected
The framework assumes that "primary" questions can be answered in isolation, independent of the "secondary" questions. However, many of the so-called secondary questions—such as those about polygamy, DNA and the Book of Mormon, and the different accounts of the First Vision—directly impact the credibility of the "primary" claims. For example:
If Joseph Smith is claimed to be a prophet, but historical evidence about polygamy or the translation of the Book of Mormon calls his actions or claims into question, it undermines the ability to affirm that primary question.
The truthfulness of the Church’s claims about being God’s kingdom on Earth hinges on the accuracy of its historical narratives and the morality of its practices.
Ignoring these interconnected issues suggests a willingness to base belief on incomplete or contradictory information, which undermines the pursuit of truth.
2. Truth Is Not Hierarchical
The argument implies that some truths are more important than others, but it does not explain why certain questions are elevated to "primary" status. For example:
Why should one conclude that Joseph Smith was a prophet without critically evaluating the historical and doctrinal claims associated with him, which are categorized as "secondary"?
If the "secondary" questions reveal contradictions, moral problems, or factual inaccuracies, they naturally call the "primary" conclusions into doubt.
Truth is holistic, and all questions must be weighed and considered because they collectively inform the validity of any religious claim.
3. Avoiding Difficult Questions Undermines Faith
This framework can encourage adherents to ignore difficult or uncomfortable questions by labeling them as "secondary" or "less important." However, faith built on avoiding scrutiny can feel fragile. For example:
A person might accept that Joseph Smith was a prophet, but if they later encounter well-documented issues like the Kinderhook Plates hoax, the evolving accounts of the First Vision, or the lack of archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon, their faith could be severely shaken. Thus challenging the "primary" question.
By discouraging critical engagement with these issues, the framework fosters a brittle faith rather than one rooted in thorough understanding.
Authentic belief is strengthened by wrestling with all questions, not just the ones that seem convenient or easy to answer.
4. It Creates an Arbitrary Standard
The categorization of questions into "primary" and "secondary" is arbitrary and subjective. Who decides which questions are primary and which are secondary? For someone deeply affected by issues like polygamy or LGBTQ+ teachings, those questions might feel as "primary" as the four listed. For example:
A person grappling with the Church's historical treatment of marginalized groups may find it difficult to reconcile the idea of the Church as "the kingdom of God on Earth" if those issues remain unresolved.
Elevating certain questions over others may reflect institutional priorities rather than an objective approach to truth.
5. A Lack of Transparency Reduces Credibility
By classifying challenging historical and doctrinal issues to the category of "secondary," the framework can come across as evasive or dismissive. People seeking truth often value transparency and integrity in addressing difficult questions. This approach can feel like an attempt to shield believers from inconvenient truths, which undermines the credibility of the organization promoting it.
A more honest and comprehensive approach would acknowledge that all questions—whether about God's existence, the role of Jesus, or Church history—are relevant to the pursuit of truth. Faith that is informed by rigorous inquiry and open to examining difficult issues is more resilient and trustworthy than faith built on avoiding or dismissing critical questions.
Ultimately, truth is robust enough to withstand scrutiny, and no question should be deemed unimportant in the search for it.
-Mason
Share your thoughts in the comments below - No Login Required.
Comments
Post a Comment