You may know the truth of all things

by Mike Richardson

To anyone who has spent much time with a Mormon missionary, the message of the Book of Mormon verses found in Moroni 10:3-5 is probably familiar. If you want to know the truth, study, ponder, and pray with sincerity. God will reveal the truth of all things by the power of the Holy Ghost, also known as the Holy Spirit. If you aren't familiar with how the Holy Spirit works, a missionary might refer you to Galations 5:22-23 in the New Testament: "The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering [patience], gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance." Since these are the fruit of the Spirit, then like fruit from a tree, when these are present one can be sure the Spirit (the "tree" or source of these feelings or attitudes) is also present. We may know that we are in the presence of God.

I've heard some people protest that one cannot trust one's own heart or feelings, and cite scripture, or science, to support that notion. It is interesting to me that this is the approach that is taken to undermine the role of the Holy Spirit as a teacher of truth (see also John 14:2). I've rarely, if ever, heard anyone deny that a sincere, prayerful search for the truth will result in the above mentioned fruits--only that one cannot trust such fruits. I even heard a young Mormon convert turned evangelical Calvinist admit that he remembered feeling these fruits when he first investigated Mormonism--but as with so many others who reject Mormonism, he argued that one cannot trust one's feelings, and went so far as to say that "Moroni's promise" is a biased test because the result is described before the "experiment" is carried out. In scientific terms this is sometimes called confirmation bias.

This young man's argument was simply another way of reiterating that you can't trust yourself--something "objective" science accepts as an article of it's own faith. Of course, assuming that one cannot trust one's self entails its own possibilities for confirmation bias. As a young skier, the moment I began to fear that I might fall and hurt myself usually just preceded the moment I actually fell. In fact, no experiment is free from this possibility of bias. Even scientific experiments that rigorously control for known biases are subject to the biases that inform scientific assumptions and methodology in the first place. For example, one scientist might argue that a feeling of peace is simply a neural response to an external stimulus, such as a sunset, or the ingestion of a drug. Another scientist might argue that the same feeling of peace may involve neural processes, but that those processes are an insufficient explanation for the feeling--one must also consider the mental or cognitive processes, the thoughts, of the person having the feeling. An experiment may be designed to test these hypotheses, 1. that neural processes alone are required to induce the subjective feeling of peace, and 2. that cognitive processes are also required for the experience of peace--particularly in the interpretation of a feeling as "peaceful." But these two scientists, however carefully they design their experiment, are driven by a common bias--that peace has only to do with processes taking place within the individual or in the interaction between the individual and the environment. Their assumptions do not allow them to consider a third influence (e.g. the Holy Spirit) and so they cannot see it no matter how closely they examine the phenomenon. Their experiment may be analogous to looking through a window and arguing whether the object on the other side is inherently blue, or blue because of some interaction with its immediate surroundings--all without considering the existence of the glass through which they are looking, much less it's color. One cannot see the glass unless one looks for it.

Put differently, the scientist who examines a mental or spiritual phenomenon (such as peace) is a mental or spiritual creature him or herself--he or she typically fails to look back upon his or her own mental processes about the mental processes of another person--if such a thing is even possible to do. So science, and often religion, typically degenerates into either dogma (only my perspective counts) or relativity (all perspectives are equally true or false). In short, denying our ability to know the truth by our own experience (some would say subjective experience), we are ironically left with either a dogmatic, thoroughly biased sense, or no real sense of the truth at all.

My question is, why are people afraid of their own experience? If the truth has been so obscured already by competing arguments, experiments, or exegeses, then why not try asking God and trusting the answer that is received in one's own heart and mind. Yes, the heart can err, and so can the mind, but they are the best tools we have--and all other sources of truth must be filtered through the heart and mind anyway. So whether you see something with your own eyes, hear it (or read it) testified of by another, or think it up yourself, all of these experiences must equally pass through your heart and mind (or thoughts and feelings)--and so they are subject equally to reinterpretation, misinterpretation, flat out rejection, or alternatively to understanding, enlightenment, and acceptance.

Having tried the experiment described in Moroni 10:3-5, I testify that it is quite easy to tell the difference between the fruits of the Spirit mentioned above and feelings or thoughts generated by imagination, external stimuli, or mundane experiences. Cognitive scientists have experimented with the connection between brain and experience by fiddling electronically with the brains of participants in the experiment. They found that by stimulating they brain they could generate feelings, get the person to move in some way, or even stimulate thoughts or memories. However, participants also knew when their experience was their own and when it was manipulated by the experimenter. They would often respond to a bodily movement, mental or emotional experience generated by the experimenter by saying, "That wasn't me." How did they know the difference between experiences generated by their own mind or thoughts and those generated by the experimental manipulation of their brains? My answer is that the will to move, think, or feel originates not only in the brain, but also beyond the brain. We are not simply biological beings, but also spiritual beings. The brain alone is insufficient to explain our experience. When we are honest with ourselves, and perhaps with some practice, we can easily know when our own thoughts (minds or spirits) are generating our experience and when there are other sources contributing to that experience--even by direct manipulation of the brain. Likewise, we are quite capable of telling the difference between those other sources, such as the difference between sights and sounds, theories and testimonies, and arguments and experiences. Similarly, we are capable of learning to discern spiritual influences such as the presence and nature of another spirit--no less than the presence and nature of another body. But first we have to believe enough to make the attempt. No one looks for atoms and molecules without first believing that they might exist. You can't see a very clean window without first focusing your eyes and mind in the right place.

"If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed" (James 1:5-6).

"Be not afraid, only believe" (Mark 5:36)

"For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind" (2 Timothy 1:7).