I wrote this article in March, 2018 when some members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints protested against the policy that bishops could ask youth sexually explicit questions without a parent being present. These are my thoughts on the matter.
In my journey through math, I have come to learn a few things about truth. By definition, truth is the recognition of reality. It something is real, then it has some properties:
- If something is true, it is true throughout all time: past, present, and future.
- If something is true, it is true for everyone.
- If something is true, it can never be proved false.
There are no exceptions to this. Something can either be true, or it can be false. There is no middle ground.
Things that people have perceived to be true have been proved false throughout history. All it takes is one fact to prove something false. This fact is called a counterexample. As soon as a counterexample can be found, what was once considered to be true ceases to be considered true.
Determining what is true and what is not can be quite difficult when faced with all of the information being distributed today. Thankfully, there are some tools we can use to help us with some of that information. These tools are found in formal logic.
Here’s how formal logic works:
“All squares are rhombuses” can be written as “If a shape is a square, then it is a rhombus.”
In formal logic, this is called an if-then statement. Its base form is “If P, then Q.”
Once we have an if-then statement, we can attempt to find a counterexample. This is a “not Q.” If we can find a “not Q,” then we will have a “not P.”
This can be written as “If not Q, then not P.”
In the case of the square and the rhombus, we can say, “If a shape is not a rhombus, then the shape is not a square.” We can see from this that both the “If P, then Q” and the “if not Q, then not P” are logically equivalent statements.
Consider how this logic can be applied to the following example:
All runners are athletes.
This can be written as “If a person is a runner, then he is an athlete.”
I can then apply this logic to anyone I know who is a runner: if Jenny is a runner, then I can logically deduce that she is also an athlete.
I can also apply it to anyone who is not an athlete: if Gerald is not an athlete, then he is not a runner.
Let’s go a little further and apply this to a touchy subject currently happening in the LDS Church: many members within the LDS Church are upset that local LDS bishops ask youth (people between the ages of 12–18) personal questions about their sexual habits without a parent or guardian being present. These members are participating in marches all over the world. Members are protesting during the Church’s worldwide conferences. Others are complaining online.
I find this completely illogical.
But before I can explain why, I must state two facts about the LDS Church that you may not be familiar with:
- The LDS Church claims to be the only true church in existence.
- The LDS Church claims that Jesus Christ himself leads the church through a living prophet.
All members of the church accept these two statements. And yet, many within the church fail to apply logical reasoning before they take to the streets and to the internet with their complaints, which is why I find their complaints completely illogical.
And I’ll show you why.
When we put the statements into “if P, then Q” form, we get the following:
- If the LDS Church is true, then it is the only true church in existence.
and - If the LDS Church is true, then Jesus Christ himself leads the church through a living prophet.
We can combine the two since one can be a corollary of the other:
If the LDS Church is the only true church in existence, then Jesus Christ himself leads the church through a living prophet.
I bet you see where I am going with this, but let’s take it a step further and apply it to the current situation:
If Jesus Christ himself leads the church through a living prophet, then he himself instructed the bishops to ask personal questions about a youth’s sexuality.
Therefore, if a person is a member of the LDS Church, then they also believe that Jesus told the bishops to pry into the lives of children without a parent or guardian present. It’s really that simple.
Why, then, if they believe that Jesus is behind the mandate, are these people protesting? If Jesus has commanded it, then no amount of protest will change it. It’s either true or it isn’t.
Perhaps the “isn’t” should be explored.
Remember, that the “If not Q, then not P” is equivalent to the “if P, then Q” statement.
That statement is:
If Jesus did not instruct the bishops to question children about their sexual issues, then he does not lead the church through a prophet.
And further:
If Jesus does not lead the church through a prophet, then the church is not the only true church.
So if a person believes that the church is true, then he must conclude that Jesus is a pervert, getting his kicks off the stories that children tell to bishops. However, if a person believes that Jesus is not a pervert, then he must also conclude that the church is not true. Plain and simple.
Added in 2021
Let’s apply this same reasoning to a similar situation.
Hebrews 13:8 states: “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and forever.” We’ve already established that the Church claims that Jesus Christ himself runs the Church. Because of this, we can rest assured that every policy on the books of the Church came from Jesus. So Jesus fully approves of bishops asking the youth sexually explicit questions without the presence of the parents. On a separate note, why would parents allow another adult to ask their child questions like that even in their presence? Since Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever, I can’t imagine why he would be intimidated by a handful of people protesting over one policy. Is the supreme creator of the universe really going to back down to a few people angry over His child-questioning policy? I think not. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever, after all.
So let’s put this in the if P then Q statement:
If Jesus runs the Church, then Church policy does not change.
How about the if not Q then not P?
If Church policy changes, then Jesus does not run the Church.
And, once again, if Jesus does not run the Church, then the Church is not true. It seems like there are plenty of arguments that will result in the Church not being true.
And if the church is not true, why are these people trying to change it? Do they think that changing it will make it more true? If the church isn’t true, the logical response is to stop giving this church money and to leave it.
Ethan's Journal 