he English language includes two closely related words that although related are separated by a discriminating fine line. In our dictionaries one of those words is defined as, “a firm belief in something for which there is no proof.” The other as, “a persistent false belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self.” A belief when evidence is minimal or lacking is justifiably classified under the first definition but a dogged belief when evidence mounts against it leans precariously toward the second definition. Agreed? The first definition belongs to the word faith while the second belongs to the word delusion.

Recent examples in Utah culture help illustrate when a leap of faith can cross that fine line and become a spiraling plunge into delusion. When the disappearance of Lori Hacking first became news, because of a lack evidence to the contrary her parents held to their belief that she remained alive. It was arguably a healthy use of faith as it empowered the thousands who turned out to help find out where she might be and it provided some comfort to the parents when their world was turned on end. Then evidence began stacking up against their faith, and although the public began doubting and their numbers dwindled the parents clung to their belief – arguably still a healthy use of faith but it teetered on that fine line. But when evidence became overwhelming, in spite of the fact that it was within the realm of very remote possibility that it was all a hoax and she was yet alive, her parents had no choice but to let go of what they so badly wanted to believe. To do otherwise would have transformed their once healthy faith into an unhealthy delusion.

Another similar example with a different outcome is the Elizabeth Smart case. After many months her parents held firm to their belief that she was alive. At times some felt like their belief was a bit irrational if not delusional but because her parents felt like there wasn’t sufficient evidence to the contrary they held firm to what was rightly called their faith. It too was a healthy productive faith because the lack of countering evidence allowed it as a reasonable possibility. It also went a long way toward keeping the level of awareness elevated which eventually contributed to her safe return when an observant woman in the community reported something she thought was unusual.

A more current issue provides a third example. Within the last few weeks, as of this writing, a new book was released to the public dealing with an issue that’s been looming on Mormonism’s horizon for the last decade and challenges its long-held beliefs. The book is titled Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA and the Mormon Church, by Dr. Simon Southerton. Two years ago I had lunch with Dr. Southerton, a humble, unassuming man who seems to prefer being called Simon, and who resigned from the Mormon Church while still faithfully serving as a bishop in Australia. Because his life’s work includes extracting, cloning and sequencing DNA it has well acquainted him with the science of DNA and its implications. Consequently, when he discovered DNA research on Native Americans that utterly contradicted what he so badly wanted to believe about the Book of Mormon he was left with no choice but to resign his cherished belief to the scrap heap as well as his membership in the Church. Evidence he faced was so overwhelming that it left no room for a healthy faith. The issue that confronted him was the glaring discrepancy between the well-established Asiatic ancestry of Native Americans and the Mormon claim that they are instead of Hebrew descent.

This is probably the most important issue in Mormonism today because it is on the claim of Hebrew descent that the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith’s claims are founded and it is on the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith that the entire Mormon belief system rests. I remember learning in Seminary as a youth that “the Church stands or falls on the validity of the Book of Mormon” and I can now add that the validity of the Book of Mormon rests on the issue of lineage.

In each of the above three cases the presence or lack of countering evidence justified the persistence or surrender of the desired belief. Just as Lori’s parents badly wanted her to be alive many badly need and want the Book of Mormon to be what Joseph Smith represented it to be but evidence is mounting to the contrary. Such persistent belief in the face of staggering evidence to the contrary can no longer be justified as a healthy faith, as some in our community have lately rationalized. Among other claims, the hypothesis that a God would change Native American DNA “to hide its true identity” and not tell his prophets (a claim by at least one overconfident apologist) stretches the bounds of reason.

Those bounds certainly burst and the hypothesis at best flirts with delusion when it is realized that such a belief also requires the same god to deceptively change all archeological, anthro- pological and linguistic evidence to point to an Asiatic descent.



To top it off he would also have to destroy any evidence that points to a Hebrew lineage because absolutely none of any consequence exists. To imagine that a god would methodically and deceitfully tamper with the evidence, as the faithful have rationalized, and not tell his prophets (who beginning with Joseph Smith have confidently and erroneously declared many times that they are of Hebrew descent) cannot, in my view, be justified as holding to a healthy faith. Evidence tampering and hiding facts are frowned upon to the degree that we often consign such a perpetrator to prison. How can anyone justify worshipping a God they reason would do the same?

Another view lately proposed by a few LDS faithful is that science can sometimes be wrong, to which I agree. They imply that this justifies making science take a backseat to faith as a means of discovering truth. But faith has proven to be wrong far more often than has science. In fact, the uncomfortable reality for some is that in every case when faith and science have locked horns and time allowed the gathering of sufficient evidence to make a reasoned choice, facts have always come out the winner. It’s easy to see why this is the case when the matter of faith versus facts is compared with driving a car.



One person makes the commitment to gather all pertinent facts while driving, such as the direction and rate of travel, where the edge of the road is, watches for any obstructions in the road, etc. But the other chooses to ignore facts, such as the sound of the tires leaving the road and foolishly opts instead to drive with eyes tightly closed, relying on faith and feelings for guidance. Who is more likely to safely reach the intended destination? Obviously the one who wisely chooses to rely on facts.

While many justifiably turn to faith for moral support, at least some statistics show its use beyond that role to be less than useful. For example, Mormons rely heavily on faith and prayer in making two of the most important and far-reaching types of decisions made in life – financial decisions and the choice of a marriage partner. Has the heavy reliance on faith in Utah been a benefit in those two important areas? No, not at all. The divorce rate in Utah has been at times noticeably above the national average and otherwise hovers near the average, and within the last two years Utah has ranked number one in the nation for number of personal bankruptcies per capita. It seems in Utah, at least, that the use of faith in making important life decisions has about as much benefit as tossing a coin. Why then use faith to aid in a judgement call on any matter of consequence—especially when facts contradict that faith? In such matters facts have proven far more reliable than has faith.

This brings me back to the question posed in the title of this essay: Is having faith a virtue? The answer to the question depends on which side of the line a belief falls in the faith versus delusion spectrum. It is a virtue when used sparingly at times for moral support but when evidence mounts against even a firmly held belief, stubbornly clinging to that belief is about as well advised and virtuous as driving drunk—or even worse, driving blind.