A friend of mine shared a story when he and a buddy were at a bar eating their dinner. They started discussing how the beer machine worked. They wondered how the handle levered the internal system and how the beer poured out of the system so clean. The mechanics started to intrigue them, and they pondered the entire contraption. The wonder got the best of them, and they asked the bartender how the machine worked. She looked at them quite quizzically, slowly grabbed the handle and pulled it toward her with a short but slowly drawn out statement, “You … pull the handle.”

They didn’t want to try and describe to her what they were actually asking and said, “Thank you.” Interestingly, both parties left the bar thinking the other one was a bit too simple-minded.

• Bartender: “Why ask such a simple question?”

• Friend: “How could you think that is all there is to that machine?”

Transaction thinking and mechanics thinkers

My experience with many religious faithful, including Latter-day Saints, is that they think about the Gospel and Christian faith in terms of transactions. Maybe another way to describe the general believer is that they often ask first-order questions that focus on knowledge claims; Are you saved? Do you obey the commandments? Can you explain the plan of salvation? What blessings do you get from paying your tithing?

The ‘mechanics thinkers’ are much more interested in second-order questions. Second-order questions are not out to seek answers within the subject, but are questions about how that subject goes about answering the questions it asks. They are questions about the processes of constructing knowledge, and what counts as knowledge in that field, not questions about the knowledge itself (reference).

In 1906, B.H. Roberts’ response to those believers of the manual theory of the Book of Mormon translation¹ criticized those that stuck to transaction thinking concerning the translation of the Book of Mormon.

It is no use resisting the matter, the old theory must be abandoned. It could only come into existence and remain so long and now be clung to by some so tenaciously because our fathers and our people in the past and now were and are uncritical. They have been and are now— and to their honor be it said— more concerned with the fact of the divine origin of the Book of Mormon and the great work it introduced than to the modus operandi of its translation. Overwhelmed by a divine testimony of its truth, they have paid little attention to the precise manner by which it was brought forth. … One could wish that our own people would approach the consideration of the matter with less feeling and more reason than they do; for the whole effort on the part of those who put forth the Manual theory of translation is merely to ascertain the truth respecting the matter, and with the view of finding a basis from which the work may be successfully defended and advocated.

He then provides a lengthy quote from John Fiske that defines disciples of the second sort², which focuses on mechanics thinking where disciples of the first sort are transaction thinkers.

1. First sort: people who fall under the spell of a person or a doctrine, whose whole intellectual life thenceforth consists in their partisanship. They expound, defend, ward off foes, and live and die faithful to the one formula. Disciples of the first sort often become mere magnifying mirrors wherein one sees enlarged, all the defects of a doctrine.
2. Second Sort: Those who are attracted to a new doctrine by the fact that it gave expression, in a novel way, to some large and deep interest which had already grown up in themselves, and which had already come, more or less independently, to their own consciousness. Disciples of the second sort cooperate in the spirit’s works; they help lead the thought that they accept to a more genuine expression. They force it beyond its earlier and cruder stages of development.

So we now have three comparative metaphors for describing two types of thinkers.

	Metaphore		Category 1		Category 2
	_________		___________		___________
	Beer Machine	|	Transaction	|	Mechanics
	Questioners	|	1st Order	|	2nd Order
	Disciples	|	First Sort	|	Second Sort

I believe each category of thinker has its place in the kingdom. B.H. Roberts lived in Category 2 and wanted more members to find comfort in that type of thinking. After defining the disciples of a second sort, B.H. Roberts states,

I believe “Mormonism” affords opportunity for disciples of the second sort; nay, that its crying need is for such disciples. It calls for thoughtful disciples who will not be content with merely repeating some of its truths, but will develop its truths; and enlarge it by that development. Not half — not one-hundredth part — not a thousandth part of that which Joseph Smith revealed to the Church has yet been unfolded, either to the Church or to the world. The work of the expounder has scarcely begun. The Prophet planted by teaching the germ-truths of the great dispensation of the fulness of times. The watering and the weeding is going on, and God is giving the increase, and will give it more abundantly in the future as more intelligent discipleship shall obtain. The disciples of ”Mormonism,” growing discontented with the necessarily primitive methods which have hitherto prevailed in sustaining the doctrine, will yet take profounder and broader views of the great doctrines committed to the Church; and, departing from mere repetition, will cast them in new formulas; cooperating in the works of the spirit, until they help to give to the truths received a more forceful expression, and carry it beyond the earlier and cruder stages of its development.

—Elder B.H. Roberts, The Improvement Era, Vol. 9 No. 9, Salt Lake City, Utah, June 1, 1906

The ‘simple gospel’ and Mechanics thinkers

I worry that too many Latter-day Saints hear the phrase ‘simple gospel’ and think they have to stay in the first-order questions. We believe we are doing the right thing when we go to Sunday School and answer questions that ask us to respond to knowledge claims. We think we are faithful if we ’live and die by one formula’ of the gospel. I have felt family and ward member argue that those of us that are mechanics thinkers who look at the gospel with as much reason as feeling are somehow ’looking beyond the mark’ in our ponderings of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Jacob gave us the phrase ’looking beyond the mark’ in Jacob 4:14

But behold, the Jews were a stiffnecked people; and they despised the words of plainness, and killed the prophets, and sought for things that they could not understand. Wherefore, because of their blindness, which blindness came by looking beyond the mark, they must needs fall;

Do we realize that Jacob is referencing Nephi’s commentary on Isaiah as the ‘words of plainness?’ Nephi says that the words of Isaiah ‘are plain unto all they that are filled with the spirit of prophecy’ (2 Nephi 25). Thus, most are ’looking beyond the mark’ in our ignorance of the teachings of Isaiah. To understand Isaiah’s words of plainness, we need disciples of the second sort.

Ignoring the Isaiah exegesis, I think ’looking beyond the mark’ is colloquially meant to be ignoring Christ as the center of our thinking, gospel, and faith. Some want the asking of second-order questions to be looking beyond Christ. They want to reside in the call and response of so many Sunday school lessons that lulls them into a feeling of the simple gospel.

Can we ask second-order questions while keeping Christ as our focus?

Yes! Quentin L. Cook shared an article in the March 2013 Ensign titled ‘Looking beyond the Mark’ where he ended his description of types that look beyond the mark with this type of member.

Those who are committed to following rules without reference to doctrine and principle are particularly susceptible to looking beyond the mark. Equally dangerous are those who get mired in rules and are thus less willing to accept change resulting from continuous revelation.

Elder Cook’s comment seems to be directly in line with Jacob’s commentary. It appears that Jacob was thinking about his father’s experience in Jerusalem, where he was pushed out by those that followed the rules instead of ‘accepting change resulting from continuous revelation.’ Elder Cook reminds us that ‘When we look beyond the mark, we are looking beyond Christ, the only name under heaven whereby we might be saved.’

He lists multiple examples of ’looking beyond the mark’ by;

1. substituting the philosophies of men for gospel truths,
2. engaging in gospel extremism,
3. seek[ing] heroic gestures at the expense of daily consecration,
4. elevat[ing] rules over doctrine,
5. attempt[ing] to appear sophisticated and intellectual in their spiritual immaturity,
6. dissect[ing] [revelation] and add[ing] dimensions and variations of meaning that distort its beautiful truths,
7. looking beyond the mark when we elevate any one principle, no matter how worthwhile it may be, to a prominence that lessens our commitment to other equally important principles,
8. emphasiz[ing] how to do something without reference to why we do it or what we do. Doctrine usually answers the question “why?” Principles usually answer the question “what?”

In response to items 6 and 7, Elder Cook states, ‘We look beyond the mark when we refuse to accept simple gospel truths for what they are.’ Which touches on the conversation we are having. First-order questions are necessary, and the simple answers to those first-order questions should build our foundation as we move to second-order questions.

For example, I might ask a dialogue companion if they believe Jesus is Christ. If they respond “no,” I realize that my second-order reasoning will not hold in our conversation. I might ask, “Do you believe Joseph Smith restored the Gospel of Jesus Christ?” If they respond, “no,” then our second-order conversation about how God is defined and why he is defined that way will not depend on any scripture beyond the Bible. With Elder Cook, I see that our refusal to accept the simple gospel truths limits our ability to handle second-order questions correctly.

We should be careful not to ’add dimensions of meaning that distort revelation’s beautiful truths.’ However, that concept should not force us into a box where we never understand the actual dimensions found in the way, the truth, and the light. If we stay in one-dimensional thinking, we distort the dimensions that exist in revelation’s beautiful truths through ignorance.

Simple truths have second-order questions

M. Russell Ballard in The True, Pure, and Simple Gospel of Jesus Christ quoted Hyrum Smith where we see this idea of building on our first order responses.

The first principles of the gospel are faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, repentance, baptism, the gift of the Holy Ghost, and enduring to the end. [Joseph’s] brother Hyrum taught: “Preach them over [and over] again: you will find that day after day new ideas and additional light concerning them will be revealed to you. You can enlarge upon them … to comprehend them clearly. You will then be able to make them more plainly understood by those [you] teach.”

Elder Ballard’s above testimony came three years after meeting with the seminary and institute teachers in 2016. Then, he broke down the poorly understood application of ‘simple gospel’ that was pervasive at the time. Please read the following excerpts asking why he needed to share this with our professional religious educators.

Gone are the days when a student asked an honest question and a teacher responded, “Don’t worry about it!” Gone are the days when a student raised a sincere concern and a teacher bore his or her testimony as a response intended to avoid the issue. …

Fortunately, the Lord has provided this timely and timeless counsel to teachers: “And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith” (D&C 88:118). …

…

As you teach your students and respond to their questions, let me warn you not to pass along faith-promoting or unsubstantiated rumors or outdated understandings and explanations of our doctrine and practices from the past. It is always wise to make it a practice to study the words of the living prophets and apostles; keep updated on current Church issues, policies, and statements through mormonnewsroom.org and LDS.org; and consult the works of recognized, thoughtful, and faithful LDS scholars to ensure you do not teach things that are untrue, out of date, or odd and quirky.

…

Remember that “Why?” can be a great question that leads to gospel understanding.

Don’t complicate my thinking…

I believe that ‘simple faith’ is an essential ingredient in our journey back to God. However, it is only one ingredient in the great bread of life. It is the leaven, but leaven alone will not sustain or enlighten the taste buds. What B.H. Roberts calls, ‘intelligent faith’ is another vital ingredient. As we ask and answer our second-order questions, we finish the recipe that brings the bread of life. I conclude with B.H. Roberts’ masterful invitation to move beyond first-order questions.

Men seem to think that because inspiration and revelation are factors in connection with the things of God, therefore the pain and stress of mental effort are not required; that by some means these elements act somewhat as Elijah’s ravens and feed us without effort on our part. To escape this effort, this mental stress to know the things that are, men raise all too readily the ancient bar—“Thus far shalt thou come, but no farther.” So men reason; and just now it is much in fashion to laud “the simple faith;” which is content to believe without understanding, or even without much effort to understand.

The people of “simple faith,” who never question, are so much easier led, and so much more pleasant every way—they give their teachers so little trouble. People who question because they want to know, and who ask adult questions that call for adult answers, disturb the ease of the priests. The people who question are usually the people who think—barring chronic questioners and cranks, of course—and thinkers are troublesome, unless the instructors who lead them are thinkers also. Therefore one must not be surprised if now and again he finds those among religious teachers who give encouragement to mental laziness under the pretense of “reverence;” praise “simple faith” because they themselves would avoid the stress of thought and investigation that would be necessary in order to hold their place as leaders of a thinking people.³ Some would protest against investigation lest it threaten the integrity of accepted formulas of truth—which too often they confound with the truth itself, regarding the scaffolding and the building as one and the same thing.

The Seventy’s Course in Theology (Fifth Year), by B. H. Roberts

• general
• dogma
• truth