This is an archived copy of a post written by Conflict Of Justice (conflictofjustice.com). Used with permission: Conflict Of Justice may not agree with any alterations made.
“Kids who bear ‘testimony’ are just repeating words from their parents!”
Ever hear a skeptic this? This narrative against faith follows a theory that leading atheists recently came up with called Memetic Theory (or if, like Wikipedia, you don’t want to admit your theories are only theories, you just call it Memetics). Wikipedia defines Memetics as “an approach to evolutionary models of cultural information transfer.” The basic idea is that a web of myths gets passed down from generation to generation to keep social structures intact. By treating our gospel teachings as “memes” rather than “archetypes”–which is how sociologists have always treated them until now–atheist activists more successfully twist it into a social justice crusade, as if social class equality can be achieved by disrupting these myth transfers. But the deeper we look into Memetic Theory, the less it resembles a testimony of Jesus Christ and actually resembles the teachings of these same atheists and social justice proponents.
Memetic Theory
Radical atheist Richard Dawkins first used the term “meme” in 1976 to describe religious beliefs. Meme comes from the Greek word mimet?s which Wikipedia incorrectly translates to mean “pretender.” No, it doesn’t mean “pretender.” It means “imitator” or “follower,” and it is actually used in the New Testament seven times to refer to followers of Jesus Christ. So it’s not a bad word to use. The problem is that Richard Dawkins compared religious belief to evolutionary genetics.
“Just as genes propagate themselves in the gene pool by leaping from body to body via sperms or eggs, so memes propagate themselves in the meme pool by leaping from brain to brain via a process which, in the broad sense, can be called imitation… When you plant a fertile meme in my mind you literally parasitize my brain, turning it into a vehicle for the meme’s propagation in just the way that a virus may parasitize the genetic mechanism of a host cell. And this isn’t just a way of talking — the meme for, say, ‘belief in life after death’ is actually realized physically, millions of times over, as a structure in the nervous systems of individual men the world over.’… I conjecture that co-adapted meme-complexes evolve in the same kind of way as co-adapted gene-complexes. Selection favours memes that exploit their cultural environment to their own advantage. This cultural environment consists of other memes which are also being selected. The meme pool therefore comes to have the attributes of an evolutionarily stable set, which new memes find it hard to invade…. When we die there are two things we can leave behind us: genes and memes.” (Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Genes)
You stray to dangerous territory if you use this theory to equate religion with genetics–which is how Hitler talked about Jews. But history aside, this can be used to justify intolerance for other people’s beliefs. It is easy to dismiss ideas if you think they are something people inherited without choosing to believe it. It’s a cop out. It also sounds self-defeating, as I could argue that Richard Dawkins simply inherited his atheist beliefs as well. I see some atheists latch onto this notion of memetics and become fearful that religious ideas will invade their brains like a parasite and they will lose control of their mind. They equate it with brainwashing. This is why they talk about children repeating what they have been told by their parents and convincing themselves that they know it. Radical atheists think we are brainwashed, but this is only because they are too fearful to actually allow the gospel ideas to enter their brain for consideration, and they for some reason think memetics doesn’t apply to their atheist beliefs. Apparently, their ideas aren’t parasites, just ours.
The clever thing about Memetic Theory is that it is very close to what faith actually is. Joseph Smith described in Lectures on Faith a very similar process for how faith propagates. “Adam thus being made acquainted with God, communicated the knowledge which he had unto his posterity; and it was through this means that the thought was first suggested to their minds that there was a God. Which laid the foundation for the exercise of their faith, through which they could obtain a knowledge of his character and also of his glory… From this we can see that the whole human family, in the early age of their existence, in all their different branches, had this knowledge disseminated among them; so that the existence of God became an object of faith, in the early age of the world. And the evidences which these men had of the existence of a God, was the testimony of their fathers in the first instance…. this class may see by what means it was that God became an object of faith among men after the fall; and what it was that stirred up the faith of multitudes to feel after him; to search after a knowledge of his character, perfections and attributes, until they became extensively acquainted with him; and not only commune with him, and behold his glory, but be partakers of his power, and stand in his presence… the whole faith of the world, from that time down to the present, is in a certain degree, dependent on the knowledge first communicated to them by their common progenitor; and it has been handed down to the day and generation in which we live, as we shall show from the face of the sacred records.” (Joseph Smith, Lectures On Faith)
Testimony of God propagates through vocal testimony and written scripture all the way from Adam who walked with God. We also have prophets who restore face-to-face knowledge of God in periodic dispensations after periods of apostasy. But the big difference between actual faith and Memetic Theory is that the propagated testimony stirs faith in multitudes to search after knowledge of God on their own. It is not some embedded gene that replicates an exact copy, but a starting point that motivates a person to develop an individually tailored testimony for themselves.
Eternal Doctrine Vs. Temporary Policy – Dawkins says, “There is no need to think about design or purpose.” No need to think about purpose?? Isn’t that just a circular argument for evolution–that in order to see how belief is a product of evolution we need to omit all consideration of intelligent design? In order to correctly define faith, I think there absolutely is need for purpose, because Joseph Smith’s model of faith allows for much more adaptivity if testimony is propagated with purpose. Purpose means it isn’t mindlessly propagated. A person who hears their parents’ testimony is not forced to propagate an exact copy, but is free to explore different avenues and follow different commandments. This is where the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints differs from mainstream Christianity. Modern prophets receive inspiration for different commandments and policies to suit modern circumstances. The question of what is eternal unchanging doctrine and what is temporary policy is something that very frequently confuses skeptics and Antimormons. Radical atheists often complain about commandments in the bible to stone witches and sacrifice animals. But Joseph Smith’s model of faith allows for adaptivity so that we retain the same eternal truths that Adam believed but practice an orthopraxy that is suited to modern times.
Rhetorical Evidence – Evolution is based on physical science, but Memetic Theory moves to rhetorical and immaterial evidence, and thus is on very shaky ground as science. How could Richard Dawkins possibly know how people 10,000 years ago passed down beliefs? There is no way to produce physical evidence. Ironically, we see this same argument I’m making here being used against religion by skeptics. How could we possibly know that the scriptures are really ancient records and that Noah really built an ark? These are things that are based on rhetorical evidence, and it is ironic that atheists end up relying on rhetorical evidence as well to attack religion.
If it turns out Nephi exaggerated some parts of his story, does that make the entire Book of Mormon false? This is a difficult question for both Mormons and Antimormons. I don’t think strict historical accuracy is the point of scripture. Do some details affect my ability to repent, receive authoritative saving ordinances, or have faith in God? There certainly are details in scripture that are important as historical events because these events involve gospel spiritual truth, such as Jesus dying on the cross and Joseph Smith restoring the church. The church can’t be true unless Jesus died on the cross and Joseph Smith restored the church. But other small details? Thus, scripture acts as a catalyst for discovering truth. It is not an embedded vehicle for delivering everything in a perfect end-all package, as some mainstream Christians unfortunately treat it, but the seed that leads to inspiration.
Are there embedded beliefs that we in the church propagate without really investigating or verifying it? Absolutely, I think this is impossible to completely avoid. But not when it comes to scripture. Scripture is heavily investigated. I don’t think anything has been examined and evaluated as much as scripture. But there are certainly other aspects that I feel we pass down that we should inspect closer, such as the seer stone narrative and the claim Oliver Cowdery used a divining rod. There are cultural beliefs that could use investigation and refinement. But there are also unchanging truths that go all the way back to Adam which are contained in the holy scriptures.
Archetypes of Collective Unconscious
Carl Jung developed the idea of collective human archetypes in 1916, which is a much better explanation for patterns of conception that get passed down from generation to generation. Underlying evolutionary structures produce the basis for popular belief which means those beliefs are the best for reproducing the species. Carl Jung said, “Thoughts are natural events that you do not possess, and whose meaning you only imperfectly recognize.” Religious belief has produced a society that is most suitable for individual and collective growth. That’s why it continues to get passed down.
This sounds much better than memes. Jordan Peterson said, “the meme is a trivial concept compared to the archetype.” How is archetype different than a meme? The evolutionary archetype goes back to primitive humans who learned to share food because they discovered this would lead to food being shared to them. Much like Greek philosophers who said man’s capacity for socializing began when they stood on two feet and looked at the stars instead of the ground, evolutionary archetype claims social standards were born at the same times as religious faith. Humans discovered sacrifice as a means to achieve a greater long-term goal, and the ultimate cosmic sacrifice of God on behalf of the universe became a belief to enable us to achieve the greatest long-term goals imaginable.
Again, we can see similar devices in the Mormon faith. We make a much bigger deal of Adam’s sacrifices to God on the altar, something we treat as a significant advancement while mainstream Christianity doesn’t have much to say about sacrifice until Noah stepped out of the ark. But the problem with Jordan Peterson’s and Carl Jung’s treatment of spiritual development is that it leads to the social contract and goes no further. If the gospel is just rhetoric and mythological stories that got invented somewhere along the line, the social contract is the furthest it can go, because then there isn’t really a supreme Creator who died on the cross to atone for sins. Divine justice must melt away to social justice, and that is a real problem, because social justice as it is made manifest time and time again is the plan of Satan, not the plan of God. So even if social justice were a productive structure–which it isn’t–it completely contradicts the archetypes from which it is born. We must fall back on mindlessly propagated memes that are carbon copied and we lose all individual freedom of belief. I respect Jordan Peterson’s investigation and he does a great job debunking Richard Dawkins, but he doesn’t quite reach the important final step which is godly justice.
If meme is a trivial derivative of archetype, archetype is a trivial derivative of natural law. In the apocryphal Book of Enoch, God tells Enoch all creation obeys God’s word and our obedience to God is simply a matter of doing likewise. The spiritual structures that span continents and time are largely natural ideas that we ought to figure out on our own, like cooking food or bathing in water. They are just common sense. But archetypes show incredible detail don’t they? The Mayan pyramids that so closely resemble the pyramids in Egypt are often passed off as a result of archetype. Humans are naturally inclined to build pyramids, I guess. Well, we members of the church have a sensible explanation for that. Our scripture tells us of a migration from the Middle East to Central America. We know of a direct connection due to divine intervention. Divine intervention is the natural occurrence that allows for such detail. Periods of apostasy are interrupted by periods of restoration, and this occurs on an individual level as well as globally. Individually, there is a cycle of apostasy and repentance, where truth that was lost is restored from an external spiritual source. The external source–the Holy Ghost (and also evil spiritual influences)–accounts for the remarkable detail of archetype transfer, and for the purpose or design behind it all.
Rather than some unseen biological device, maybe there is an unseen spiritual connection that provides this spiritual information. Maybe there is a Holy Ghost that puts thoughts and feelings into our head that are not the result of millions of years of evolution. This can produce stunningly similar details to other continents and time, such as temple ordinances that are similar to Freemason ceremonies. Or Gadianton’s evil secret combinations that were stunningly similar to the conspiracy groups in Ether’s time, though Gadianton had no access to their writings. Are these things coincidences? Couldn’t be. Are they the product of some embedded idea in our biology? Or are they the product of inspiration from spiritual beings? Science can’t tell us either way.
Levels Of Knowledge
So, the child who gets up in Sacrament Meeting and tells everybody he knows the church is true. Is this a true testimony? Or is he just repeating what he’s heard until he believes it? Greek philosopher Plato said there are four degrees of knowledge, which he explained in a parable:
In his parable, Plato said knowledge starts with mere allusion to truth like a puppet show casting shadows upon a cave wall. This is the “hope” Alma speaks of. This is the child saying he knows it is true because he hopes it is true, and it is valid as knowledge. It is the first step of knowledge. So when a young child gets up in Sacrament meeting and says they “know the church is true,” this is not a false statement. Alma even says there are cases where “little children do have words given unto them” that can direct people to “the first place” of gaining knowledge or the first stage of hope.
Then, a person turns around and sees the fire projecting the shadows. This is when a person gains a rhetorical belief or conviction of the source behind allusions. Next, they walk out the door of the cave they are in and see how the same principle of light and shadow operates all around us. Plato calls this a “mathematical” understanding, which basically means the person gains an understanding the nature of operation. As Joseph Smith put it, this is understanding the character of God and a knowledge that your own character is in alignment with it. Finally, a person fully understands that the sun is the source of all visible objects. This is the use of reason with which we approach divinity. This is the source of truth which we can use to design our own creation.
An important difference between Mormonism and Platonicism is that the visible realm overlaps the invisible realm. The allusionary puppets that we started out with are not tossed aside as we exit the cave, but kept as the seeds of knowledge. God is not a myth that we forget about once we discover repentance. But the memetic seed that led us to search for knowledge is passed along–not as a carbon copy but in our own words and understanding.
Alma says enlightened understanding and expanded intellect are the final degrees of knowledge. Like Plato, he says this gives us the power of discerning things and we see light for what it is. When it comes to right and wrong, or moral truth, Mormons look for a spiritual source with which to discern. We understand the principles behind spiritual cause and effect until we are able to frequently exercise them, and we use the spiritual source like a flashlight.
Nobody Is Given Lines – The LDS church does not feed people what to say. The LDS church does not tell people to repeat things over and over. We do not have prayer books or memorized scripts. People “bear testimonies” by talking frankly about personal thoughts and feelings however they wish. Certainly, nobody is told to say anything they think is untrue. People who bear testimony go up to the podium and simply talk about their thoughts in order to get them to think about it more and develop their ideas. The point of bearing a testimony is to help the process of developing knowledge along.
Aren’t testimonies kind of like what you do in school? You present subjects to the class in order to gain a better understanding of it yourself. When the teacher asks you to solve a math problem on the board, do you tell her, “But I can’t because I don’t know that this math principle is true”? That is the whole point of solving it on the board! We publicly bear our testimonies in order to better understand our testimonies. We don’t just believe something we hear in class, whether at school or church. We think about it.
Scientists gain a better understanding of their science by “bearing testimony” of their hypotheses in research papers and review journals, even though they don’t start off “knowing” it without a shadow of a doubt. Journals and studies help them develop their ideas, because public presentations help us focus and frame the issue in a logical, clear way, and allows us to receive public feedback. Like anything, it is hard to truly understand the gospel until you can explain it to someone else. We do not make vain repetitions. We boldly declare what we know is right.
Memeticism In The World
I find it interesting that the same skeptics who children are too young to bear testimony also say children are old enough to change gender. The same skeptics that say children are too young to decide about getting baptized say the church is terrible if we don’t baptize children of gay couples. They claim our beliefs are just carbon copies mindlessly passed down, yet they propagate their ideology with the least amount of critical thought. Their narrative shifts all over the place, like a strand of DNA that gets passed on for only however long it is useful, and then a different strand gets created and passed around.
Just look at journalism; 99% of it is just repetition of a narrative somebody else already wrote up. Most news sites and blogs are like weeds passing along seeds of the narrative that got passed along to them. They are not archetypical, but purely memetic devices that mindlessly repeat. Look at a Facebook feed. Look at school classroom assignments. Look at Antimormon websites. It’s the same old tired arguments that have been repeated for hundreds of years. I have noticed lots of people on the internet repeating lines out of Antimormon writings instead of thinking for themselves, and I have noticed today’s Antimormon rhetoric is basically the same as Antimormons who have come before. In the history of the world, has an apostate or skeptic ever come up with and developed his “faith crisis” entirely on his own? Has an apostate ever split from the church without someone inserting a parasitical doubt into his brain? From what I’ve seen, people typically read something on the internet or hear something from a friend and it sparks a bunch of other concerns. So why are we Mormons being attacked for starting our process of knowledge with a seed of hope when that is similar to how Ex-Mormons lose their faith?
When have you ever seen a church member read a script while bearing testimony in church? When has a leader ever told someone to testify of a specific thing that the person didn’t really know to be true? The only time I ever saw this happen was when an Antimormon child read a script for their “testimony” attacking the church. The Socialists who use Memetic Theory to bash Christianity also use it to propagate their socialist ideology. They think if they can reduce natural law to immaterial memetic ideas they can easily tweak morality to bring class consciousness and pure equality. Everything can be equal if they just unlock those inner biological vehicles and change them to their liking. Thus, propaganda becomes a replacement for spiritual inspiration.
What Meme Has Become – I think the greatest proof of how wrong Richard Dawkin’s theory of evolutionary memetics is lies in how the “meme” has evolved into what it is today. The “meme” today has become a small image or video clip that tells a quick message and gets passed around to lots of people on the internet. Isn’t that what a meme is? People take a funny image and attach some kind of ironic or profound message, but there are all kinds of different messages that get attached to the same image. That’s what makes it a meme. You might see a conservative and liberal attach opposing messages to the same meme image. So it turns out, a meme isn’t the moral message or spiritual imperative that gets naturally passed from human to human, it is the aesthetic frame that contains the message. Time has proven Dawkin wrong. It is the frame that naturally stays the same. A true “meme” would be the church steeple that is used by many different churches who all believe different things. The black suit and tie. The church organ. Within the church, we have our own sort of recognizable memes, such as the cheap grass siding on our church hallways, CTR rings, and missionary tags. These facilitate whatever particular message we individually wish to attach to them. A CTR ring doesn’t tell us what right is, just that we should choose it. A missionary tag doesn’t give only one name, it only says we should represent Jesus Christ.
So mimeticism does not explain why people inherently know certain things are right and wrong. It doesn’t explain why belief systems get passed down. Archetype comes closer but still fall short because it doesn’t explain divine justice. The truth is spiritual testimony is a fire on a cave wall that inspires us to seek out for ourselves knowledge of the fire’s source, knowledge of all light, and knowledge of how to create light for ourselves. It is a process of discovery that sparks future processes of discovery.
In conclusion:
