Reading time: 9 minutes.
Hi Friend,
Today I want to talk to you about a topic that really affected me deeply for a while: dualistic thinking.
Many faith traditions, including LDS teachings, encourage dualistic thinking—right vs. wrong, truth vs. deception. Sometimes we call it all-or-nothing or black-and-white thinking. And we have lived in it so much that we don’t even think about it until the script is flipped.
In the Church, even from leaders, we hear it frequently. For example, in D&C 1:30 the Lord declares that it is the “only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth.”
That phrase is often shortened to, “the only true church,” all-or-nothing claims.
Let me give you some examples of ways our dualistic, right or wrong, all or nothing language is used when talking about the Church:
“If it’s false, we’re engaged in a great fraud. If it’s true, it’s the most important thing in the world. Now, that’s the whole picture. It is either right or wrong, true or false, fraudulent or true.” Gordon Hinckley
“He (Joseph Smith) was either a prophet of God, divinely called, properly appointed and commissioned, or he was one of the biggest frauds this world has ever seen. There is no middle ground.” Joseph Fielding Smith
“Our whole strength rests on the validity of that [first] vision. It either occurred or it did not occur. If it did not, then this work is a fraud. If it did, then it is the most important and wonderful work under the heavens.” Gordon Hinckley
“Either the Book of Mormon is true, or it is false; either it came from God, or it was spawned in the infernal realms. It declares plainly that all men must accept it as pure scripture or they will lose their souls. It is not and cannot be simply another treatise on religion; it either came from heaven or from hell. And it is time for all those who seek salvation to find out for themselves whether it is of the Lord or of Lucifer.” Bruce McConkie
“The Book of Mormon is the keystone of [our] testimony. Just as the arch crumbles if the keystone is removed, so does all the Church stand or fall with the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon.” Ezra Benson
Referring to that last quote, Jeffrey Holland said ”It sounds like a “sudden death” proposition to me. Either the Book of Mormon is what the Prophet Joseph said it is or this Church and its founder are false, fraudulent, a deception from the first instance onward.”
These statements paint a clear picture: it’s either all true, or none of it is.
And for a long time, I took them at their word, and it felt great, until it didn’t. Then, it hurt.
When I began finding out more and more about truth claims, this kind of dualistic thinking caused me immense pain. It was a one-two punch for me.
If one thing I thought was true turned out to be different than I believed, did that mean nothing was true? It felt so do or die.
I started finding those statements above and I wrestled with them. Fortunately, some wise friends encouraged me to set those statements aside. And you might consider doing the same.
Why? Well, first, this type of dualistic thinking—that it’s either one side or the other, with no middle ground, gets us in trouble every time. In religion, politics, history, parenting, or just about any other topic you can think of, the idea that things are one way, or another is just poor judgment.
If you don’t believe it, just open your favorite social media app and take a scroll.
Second, the statements above are designed to put pressure on any one topic as the potential cause for everything to come crashing down. That was a personal source of pain for me. Did everything I examine have the possible consequence of destroying everything I believed? If something that I thought was true now turns out to not be true, is the chain event really that large?
Third, go back to our discussion about tension. There is value in sorting through the contraries to find another way.
There is a reason that this type of dualistic thinking is called a thought distortion. Because in life, history, and faith, things are rarely that simple.
Has anything touched by human hands ever been free of bias or mistakes?
Consider something as ordinary as witnessing a car accident. If four people see it from different angles, will they all describe it the same way? Of course not. Each perspective is valid but incomplete.
And if something isn’t 100% true, does that really mean it’s then 100% false?
Remember that quote from Joseph Smith that “By proving contraries, truth is made manifest”[1]
When we are willing to look at both sides, and reject all-or-nothing thinking, we can settle on something more real.
The more you recognize this kind of faulty dualistic thinking, the more you’ll see it everywhere, and the more you’ll find peace somewhere not in the extremes.
It’s normal to swing between extremes at first, but in time, you may find yourself embracing the nuance, paradoxes, and complexity of the human experience.
So, how do you approach things? Here are a few ideas.
First, always look at the bigger picture. Going back to D&C 1:30, the full verse actually says:
“The only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased.”
There are about a thousand ways you could interpret that entire sentence, isn’t there?
In fact, you have to ask yourself what “true and living” really means.
I am not 100% sure of what they mean together, but I know that Joseph Smith used it elsewhere.
For example, he called his wife Emma, “my only true and living friend.” Does that mean he had no other true friends? No living friends? I don’t think so. So maybe it means something different about the Church when the Lord called it “true and living.”
Second, question extreme claims, no matter who they come from. Was the Book of Mormon really written either by God or by Satan? Is there no middle ground?
Third, embrace paradoxes.
Could the Book of Mormon be of uncertain origin and still be scripture? Sure.
Could Joseph Smith have done questionable things and still be a prophet? The Old Testament would say yes.
Could Church leaders be both inspired and uninspired and say good and harmful things? It’s done every Sunday.
That’s non-dualistic thinking: embracing that life can be two things at once.
Lastly, give compassion—to yourself and others. Many people hold tightly to dualistic thinking because it feels safe. But often, it only leads to pain when reality doesn’t fit neatly into those categories.
Faith is not an all-or-nothing proposition. It is a journey—a process of seeking, learning, and growing. And it should be expected if your understanding evolves as you learn new things. Just because you learn something new doesn’t mean you automatically have to throw out everything.
This type of dualistic thinking is known as a cognitive bias where one sees situations, beliefs, or people in extreme, absolute terms—something is either all good or all bad, completely true or entirely false, a total success or a complete failure.
Cognitive biases are systematic errors in thinking that affect the way we perceive and interpret information. Dualistic thinking is a bias because it distorts reality by oversimplifying complex issues into two extreme categories, ignoring the spectrum of possibilities in between.
It’s something we learn, and this type of thinking leaves no room for nuance, complexity, or middle ground. And because we learned it, we can unlearn it too.
Don’t let this type of thinking add more challenges and woundedness to you.
Be kind to yourself by not layering this dualistic thinking on top of everything you are learning. This can be heavy. You don’t have to carry the burden of others’ statements on your shoulders.
With warmth,
Your Friend
P.S. I want to give you my perspective on a timely but sensitive topic that relates to dualistic thinking, the idea of “anti-Mormon” information. If you are like me, you have spent a lifetime avoiding material because it’s “anti-Mormon.”
There is a lot of material out there that is truly presented in a way that is against the church. There are many, including former members of the church, however well-intentioned, who criticize and finger-point at every aspect of the church. Their rancor and tone are such that it would leave you no doubt.
At the same time, I think the term anti-Mormon is too often used as a dog whistle, to get members to fear anything that opposes the official narrative of the Church. The term is used in such a way that scares members into not seeking questions.
At one time, books like Rough Stone Rolling by historian (and stake president and patriarch) Richard Bushman, or the Church’s own Gospel Topics Essays would have been considered anti-Mormon.
Sentiments like this from Elder Boyd Packer are part of the problem, “I have a hard time with historians because they idolize the truth. The truth is not uplifting; it destroys…Historians should tell only that part of the truth that is inspiring and uplifting.”[2]
When I read something like this, I recognize that Elder Packer and others do it to protect the Church, or the individual, and they think because they are protecting, they are right in doing so. But, as we see now, the approach is damaging in the long run.
My point is this, in your own studies and especially when someone pulls out the “uh oh, you’ve been reading anti-Mormon literature” recognize, and remind them that you are mature enough to recognize the difference between explaining the truth and trying to destroy.
[1] Joseph Smith, in History of the Church, 6:428.
[2] D. Michael Quinn quoting Boyd K. Packer, Pillars of My Faith, Sunstone Symposium, Salt Lake City, August 19, 1994