In the law, there is a concept known as burden-shifting. The idea is that some things are difficult to prove (or prove completely), and thus it is a benefit to be the side that doesn't need to prove something. There are a number of cases where the decision is simply a matter of who has to prove what -- the evidence is so inconclusive that if you don't have to prove anything you will win and if you do have to prove something you will lose.
The thing that is striking me, the more time I spend on message boards, is the burden-shifting that is taking place constantly (knowingly or unknowingly). I look at the Priesthood leaders and say that, while they are fallible, I will not believe they have made a mistake until it is proven to me. So, for instance, take the issue of blacks and the Priesthood. It has been shown to me that the rationale for why blacks could not have the Priesthood was in error. I accept that. It has not been shown that the denial of the Priesthood to the blacks was in error. Until that is shown to me, the burden of proof of a mistake is on the people claiming the mistake (in my approach to the Gospel).
Others take the opposite approach. The blacks were denied the Priesthood, and therefore it was an issue of a racist Brigham Young. Evidence? None, really, other than that the Church has acknowledged that the rationales were incorrect and there is no record of revelation on the subject. So the absence of evidence, in their mind, is proof that the policy (and the leadership) were in error.
It is the same thing with my particular pet peeve -- those who claim to be atheists and their arguments for their position is just that theists cannot prove the existence of God. This is the ultimate in burden-shifting -- and no amount of discussion of a mythical, mystical teapot will change that. On the contrary, there is ample evidence for God and no evidence for the absence of God. Science frequently can correct dogma, but has never changed doctrine.
As I thought about this, I realized just what this meant. In a case where the standard is preponderance of the evidence, a scale balanced 50/50 has the case decided in favor of the side without a burden of proof. That, in a little way, is like our mortal lives. Things tend to work out that the issues (where ever we are on the continuum, whether the issue is the existence of God for one or following the Prophet for another) are pretty well evenly balanced. In that situation, we choose where to place the burden of proof.
We choose whether to believe or to disbelieve. There is evidence sufficient to hold to any position, the question is what standards are we going to use to interpret that evidence. Over the course of my lifetime, I have never been disappointed (and subsequent experiences have always confirmed) when I held to a few, simple burdens of proof:
1) God is a loving God, and He loves all of His children -- even when bad things happen, and even when He might directly cause those bad things to happen (or, at best, allow them to happen). Any evidence indicating otherwise would need to be sufficient to wholly disprove this.
2) A Priesthood leader acting within their stewardship is correct, despite being a fallible man, and I will be blessed for following my leadership (unless their counsel violates the directives of someone higher in the ecclesiastical hierarchy or unless I receive specific revelation otherwise [which is the same thing]). Any evidence indicating otherwise would need to be sufficient to wholly disprove this.
3) Doing good results in good results. Doing evil results in evil results. Any evidence indicating otherwise would need to be sufficient to wholly disprove this.
4) The Church is the restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ on the Earth. The Lord has called His leaders. The Book of Mormon is a historical record. The Book of Abraham is a historical record....etc., etc. Any evidence indicating otherwise would need to be sufficient to wholly disprove this.
I have found, over the course of my life, that this framework of burden shifting has never let me down.
No comments:
Post a Comment