COGNITIVE DISSONANCE

            Cognitive Dissonance is a psychological “defense mechanism” that we all use to alleviate conflict, the resulting stress and hopefully give stability, security, meaning and purpose to life.  It can be good or bad depending upon one’s cultural foundation and priorities.  Cognitive dissonance is a ubiquitous Darwinian response meaning it is common in all cultures and societies.  It has helped me in answering compelling questions concerning behavior, not just my own behavior but group behavior. 

             With that in mind, it has been my observation that religion provides us with some of the most complex and mystifying examples of human behavior; and from a materialistic point of view we should add superstition and mythology to the equation.  But before I site an example consider the following academic definition of Cognitive Dissonance which I have taken from the Internet:

                According to cognitive dissonance theory, there is a tendency for individuals to seek consistency among their cognitions (i.e., beliefs, opinions). When there is an inconsistency between attitudes or behaviors (dissonance), something must change to eliminate the dissonance. In the case of a discrepancy between attitudes and behavior, it is most likely that the attitude will change to accommodate the behavior

                 A common example of dissonance is in the case of conflicting beliefs, both of which may affect behavior.  Confronted with this dilemma an individual must choose that belief which results in the least trauma, discomfort, discord or dissonance.

            The more important the belief the greater the dissonance.   According to the Internet there are three ways to eliminate dissonance:  “(1) reduce the importance of the dissonant beliefs, (2) add more consonant beliefs that outweigh the dissonant beliefs, or (3) change the dissonant beliefs so that they are no longer inconsistent.”

            As you may know I played a significant role (along with others) in the building of the law suit:  Hill vs. Allred, Jenson, Apostolic United Brethren, et. al.  The matter went before the Utah Supreme Court twice, and both times the Court ruled in favor of the Plaintiff, Hill.  In the Supreme Court’s final ruling the Justices concluded that the Defendants had engaged in a “pattern of criminal activity.”

            In a civil case the deciding rule is “a preponderance of evidence.”  In a criminal case the rule is “beyond a reasonable doubt.”  The Defendants were not charged in criminal court for stealing Hill’s money.  Nevertheless, based on my experience as a detective with the Salt Lake County Sheriff’s Office, I believe that the “preponderance of evidence” also reached the standard required for “beyond a reasonable doubt.”  In other words I believe that had the Defendants been charged with felony theft in a criminal court they would have been found guilty by either a “bench” or “jury” trial and very well could have been sentenced to prison. Put another way, the “pattern of criminal activity” was consistent with organized crime.

            Apostolic United Brethren, AUB, is a Mormon fundamentalist group boasting a membership of between 5 and 7 thousand.  At the time of the theft the leadership of AUB, Owen A. Allred and J. LaMoine Jenson, especially Jenson, were involved in the “criminal activity” up to their eye brows.  When the final judgment was rendered, which obviously sullied the reputation of Allred and Jenson, I expected there to be a wholesale exodus of scornful members.  But to my surprise, only a small handful had the temerity and strength of independence to seek more forthright and reputable pastures. It was not until I happened on to the concept of “cognitive dissonance” that it all made sense.

            The AUB membership was vexed (dissonance) by two conflicting beliefs.  (1) due process of law based on fact and reality, and (2) that Allred and Jenson were the plenipotentiary viceroys of Jesus Christ and had power and authority over their exaltation, (sic) irreality.

            Belief (2) is “irreality” because it is an emotional conclusion akin to “faith” not supported by fact, evidence or reality.  Strange as it may seem, due to the ingenuity and complexity of the brain a belief often has more influence over attitude and behavior than reality.  However, there is a paradox that can occur as it did in the case of the loyal AUB members. There occurred a contingency of reality, that is facts that influenced their “belief.”  It is that paradoxical aspect of comingling of fact and mysticism in religion that I find so fascinating, which I will attempt to explain.

              Mormonism is “a way of life,” a theocratic culture that revolves around the authority of a prophet and priesthood who has exclusive control over the present and afterlife.  Mormon fundamentalism has the additional attraction of plural marriage or polygney (one man with two or more wives), commonly referred to as polygamy.  This belief permits a man to cohabit sexually (reality) with many women.  The belief (unsupported by fact) commands the Mormon man to cohabit sexually with more than one wife (reality).

            Mormon fundamentalists tend to group together forming their own peculiar ethos – literature, heroes, lexicon, values, priorities, communities and social interaction (reality).  The lives of many fundamentalists, especially if they have been born into the “cult,” the ethos has been so ingrained into their intellective, that is cerebral introspection, that any other way of life would be alien and foreboding.  To be a Mormon is to embrace the Mormon past, present and future.  It identifies you as a person of esteem, purpose and direction.  It defines who you are. Your sensibility and emotional security is cognately and cognitively attached to the concept of Mormon as divined by Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.  Mormonism cannot exist without a prophet and priesthood.  The true, blue Mormon fundamentalist therefore devotes his mind, time and talents to that end.  In many cases his occupation as well as family is inexplicably linked to priesthood and the group.  Consequently, to perceive Allred and Jenson as crooks is to give all that up – and return to uncertainty, which is too much to bear. 

            The alternative cognitive antidote is to give more weight to reality which in this case is an agnostic or skeptical approach reached by asking oneself the following simple questions:  Does God condone thievery?  The facts proved that these so-called ambassadors of Jesus Christ lied.  If they are lying about stealing money what else are they lying about?  The Eighth of the Ten Commandments states, “Thou shalt not steal.”  These men did steal and God took no action.  Is that because God is as mythical as the authority these men claim? 

            One question leads to another until ultimately we arrive at Joseph Smith the founding Mormon prophet and the whole concept of Mormonism.  And if the inquiry progresses unabated Christianity, Judaism and Islam, all those faiths that evolved from the Bible, may become questionable.

            The alternative was obviously too painful for those who had woven their lives within the spiritual fabric of AUB, necessitating the creation of new consonant beliefs to overwhelm the dissonant alternative.  And this is what happened:

            Malign the reputation of the Plaintiff and her investigators, portraying them as evil acolytes of the Devil, which tends to mitigate the criminality of the prophets.  Sew the rumor that the money was not stolen but actually donated by the Plaintiff.  Blame the crime on subordinates who lied and tricked the beloved prophets into participating in the crime.  Excuse their participation as a rare incident of poor judgment of which they have repented.  Create and create those cognitive antidotes until you accept and believe, preserving the status quo, thus saving your personal investment in a “sacred” lifestyle.

               If you have been following this blog you may recall that I predicted that if the AUB leadership handled this crisis right (right being synonymous with cunning) AUB as a fundamentalist “cult” would emerge stronger than ever.  According to informants it appears that my augury has borne fruit and J. LaMoine Jenson and his priesthood cronies were more than up to the task.  This crisis (cognitive dissonance) has united the membership as never before.  J. LaMoine Jenson is worshiped far greater than his predecessors.  The crises cleansed the group of the fainthearted and consolidated the true believers to the point they have dug deep into their pockets, taken out loans and sold treasured personal belongings to raise the money to pay off the six million dollar judgment imposed upon their spiritual leader and sacred organization.  To date, they are only 1.5 million shy of paying it off.  Such is the power of cognitive dissonance.

            We currently live during a time of unprecedented enlightenment where science has inadvertently toppled thousands of spurious religious beliefs and superstitions which have, in my opinion, made life more safe and palatable than the irreality of religion.  The list is enormous, including such simple things as running hot water, disinfectants, sanitation, reading and writing, electricity, the telephone, gasoline engines, railroads, steam powered ships and airplanes that can fly from Los Angeles to Tokyo without refueling – all of which we take for granted.   Science has burst the belief in witchcraft and evil spirits that was once thought by Christians to cause disease.  Science has condemned the Inquisition authorized by popes and priests that put to death by the noose and stake thousands of innocent women.  When scientists were at last free to doubt and experiment unfettered by religious prejudice, the Age of Enlightenment (reason triumphing over mythology) exposed the Dark Ages as a blight on human civilization.  New inventions poured forth uninhibited, causing one scientist to predict religion would soon be antiquated and no longer necessary.  Yet, religion is as strong and powerful and dangerous today as ever – how come?  Look at 9-11?  Could it be cognitive dissonance?