Saving Faith

[jay santos]

I don't think anyone is suggesting a change in core doctrine or official beliefs. Just wondering if a little more acceptance regarding different approaches to faith would be best in the long run. Or perhaps an increased emphasis on Christian living vs. proper thinking.

Acceptance is great. I think we should have more of it.

I don't like what it sounds from UD where the non-literalists should be able to demand their views hold equal status. Maybe he's being theoretical and doesn't really mean it like that.

The concept of Christian living vs proper thinking is a great area to explore. I believe the power of a religion is in its doctrine and beliefs, so I might still disagree with the move of emphasis from proper thinking to proper living. Although I think it's good to move within the category of proper thinking as a church to start identifying what's a critical doctrine and what's OK to dump.

[SteelBlue]

I don't like what it sounds from UD where the non-literalists should be able to demand their views hold equal status. Maybe he's being theoretical and doesn't really mean it like that.

I think you two may be talking past each other a bit. I don't think that equal status was ever his point. It seems to me he's just wondering what the value is of pointing out to a non-literalist that his faith is an inferior one. IOW, why use terms like "non saving faith" that practically point to the exit door? I can see your point as well, in that the church has an interest in upholding the view it deems as correct and ultimately "saving". It seems to me though that there would be few if any non-literalists who weren't already acutely aware of the church's official stance. I find myself feeling much like UD upon reading the article. I'm not sure what good comes from a term like "a saving faith" unless one believes that we are on the verge of some great shift in thinking churchwide.

[Babs]

I think you two may be talking past each other a bit. I don't think that equal status was ever his point. It seems to me he's just wondering what the value is of pointing out to a non-literalist that his faith is an inferior one. IOW, why use terms like "non saving faith" that practically point to the exit door?

yeah, I keep having visions of some kind of latter-day inquisition.

[UtahDan]

yeah, I keep having visions of some kind of latter-day inquisition.

No one has shown me the instruments of torture yet.

[Babs]

No one has shown me the instruments of torture yet.

I can just see the bumper stickers now:

the LDS Church: Believe it or Leave it!

[DapperDan]

No one has shown me the instruments of torture yet.

Have you been to a ward pot luck?

[Sleeping in EQ]

I don't accept Millet's and/or Michael De Groote's premise and assumptions. The points being made are logical alright--ideo-logical.

I do, though, hear Blake's "mind-forged manacles" rattling in every paragraph, and in more than a few of the posts in this thread.

[Katy Lied]

I think there would be great benefit in that, actually. I think it would be wonderful to say "it is okay if you don't know, don't fully believe or have doubts, you are welcome to practice this faith and worship along side those of use who do. We don't creeds you must subscribe to here, you just need to follow the rules and do your best." That would draw in and keep in a lot of folks who don't feel welcome now. I recognize you disagree, but I just don't think that how you conceptualize all this as as important as how you live it.

Not that I'm complaining, it's just that preaching tolerance, like preaching against slavery, is such low hanging fruit. The whole reason this article is being discussed is because of the novel way it approaches what faith is, and how it contemplates what appropriate faith is. I like how Indy and Santos--known contrarians--really seize the meat of the argument to discuss. SIEQ is also known for his unorthodox thoughts on LDS issues, which makes his posts interesting, except he gets quite conventional (in the world sense, not in the LDS sense) in his analysis of someone else's unusual LDS thoughts.

[Babs]

The whole reason this article is being discussed is because of the novel way it approaches what faith is, and how it contemplates what appropriate faith is.

Is it really very novel? Is it really very contemplative?

The column linked is really little more than a synopsis of Millet's work, originally published in 1993. The author here offers so little of his own commentary that he might as well have just posted a link and typed, "this is really neat!" (Incidentally, he didn't cite his source, but you can find the original piece here: http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publ...8&num=2&id=501)

The only contribution De Groote makes is his closing suggestion that individuals are tending toward the hubristic if they presume to impose anything akin to reason or analysis upon their beliefs. I find this quite fitting coming from a guy that doesn't even reflect long enough to come up with his own material.

But setting aside my rather unflattering characterization of this column's author, let's reconsider those closing lines. When you really reflect on what he's saying, you'll see evidence of what I see as a disturbing trend in American fundamentalism. He says:

The words of the Book of Mormon are not to be judged by the private beliefs, misgivings and doubt of people. People are to be judged by the words of the Book of Mormon. A very different thing, indeed.

De Groote is not talking about faith here at all. He's talking about thought and reason. I hate to appeal to Robin here, but Robin's exactly right. What De Groote is suggesting is that because the scripture is, a priori, divine revelation and inspired truth, we have no right to question it. And to me this very attitude is at the heart of the antagonism we see between science and faith today.

I believe De Groote's ominous conclusion exaggerates this aspect of Millet's piece, but Millet's writing, too, exhibits elements of the antagonistic religious-or-reason dichotomy. He argues that our unfortunate tendency is "to adopt uncritically the secular presuppositions and methodologies of those who have neither faith nor direction." It is this type of deliberate mischaracterization of the scientifically minded that continues to erode what little common ground remains between the religious and the secular. And it is this kind of reasoning and rhetoric that makes Palin a cult hero and leads Sam Harris to muse about when elitism became so reprehensible.

This is not to suggest that Millet's commentary is without merit. Millet concedes that there is room for reason and reflection within a religious context, and that there are many matters about which the truth is debatable. But the crux of his argument is that when we get carried away with the notion that literalism isn't relevant, or that the truth of the details is of little import, we risk losing what makes religion coherent and valuable. He argues that in any faith there is a set of core tenets so crucial that their absence renders the faith meaningless. And he suggests that if we cannot or will not bring ourselves to accept those tenets as true, then in continuing to subscribe to and proclaim that that faith as our own, we do both ourselves and the denomination a disservice.

[Sleeping in EQ]

SIEQ is also known for his unorthodox thoughts on LDS issues, which makes his posts interesting, except he gets quite conventional (in the world sense, not in the LDS sense) in his analysis of someone else's unusual LDS thoughts.

Actually, what happens is this:

1. I can hardly be bothered to say more than a few sentences on someone else's LDS thoughts.

or

2. Because I respect someone, I state my disagreement but don't elaborate unless pressed. Even then, I only do so if I have time.

or

3. What is "unusual LDS thought" to one person falls into an all-too-familiar academic category for another person. Some people love it when I (or someone else) explains how "unusual LDS thoughts" can be placed on the academic map, but others don't appreciate the windbaggery.

In this case, I have respect for Bob Millett, but disagree with his quotes in this article. I also don't find his thoughts here "new" or insightful, but appreciate that others might do so. I also appreciate that Millet might not even agree with everything he said 17 years ago.

I also find Millet staking out a modernist position for authentic, literal historical objects. However, I have had enough of the usual Mormon apologist rigamarole with this and find it dishonest. Here is the dance that is invariably stepped out between so-called literalists and non-literalists when it comes to articles like De Groote's:

1. No one takes the time to find an acceptable premise and to define terms. In this article, terms like "literal," "faith," "real," and "historical" should be settled. They aren't, and instead are assumed and are used like a club.

2. As soon as historical objects are brought to the case, the discussion turns to interpretation. Suddenly, the "literalness" is that you have to agree with the literalist's interpretation (or with the "non-literalists" interpretation, which has quietly become stunningly "literal").

3. The literalist and nonliteralist become very choosy and devalue any objects, historians, or interpreters they don't like.

4. The literalist seeks recourse in the realm of spiritual witness, and maybe, in an academic point of view, but does so while trying to claim the literalness of the historical object in question. Only authorities that s/he approves will be allowed to have insight into the object.

5. The nonliteralist seeks recourse in the realm of spiritual witness, and maybe, in an academic point of view, but does so while trying to claim the nonliteralness of the historical object in question. Only authorities that s/he approves will be allowed to have insight into the object.

6. Both literalist and nonliteralist have played an academic shell game--modernism for me, postmodernism for you. Both have engaged in circular reasoning and have generated more heat than light. Both have rattled the manacles of their minds.

Go ahead and re-read De Groote's article and see if you don't find these things going on (but with De Groote only occasionaly standing up a straw man for a non-literalist position).

If we want to get beyond this kind of thing, I suggest an alternative to the article's framework:

"We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God." (Article of Faith #8).

A few questions for starters:

Does the Book of Mormon being "the word of God" mean that the Book of Mormon has to meet somebody's definition of "literal?"

How do we define "literal?"

Do we have to agree on a definition of "literal?"

Does a church have to establish how its members must define "literal?"

Does a church have to establish agreement on what its members regard as "literal?"

What do we do if we have church members who don't agree on what is "literal," or what must be "literal?"

What about asking these questions about "faith" or "real" or some of the other terms thrown about in the article?

Why is the Bible's translation and translation process mentioned in AofF #8, but the Book of Mormon's is not?

What, if anything, does the complete absence of any assertion about BoM translation or translation process in Article of Faith #8 suggest?

It could be argued that Mormons typically do the opposite of AofF #8 in that, in terms of their faith, they tend to ignore the Bible's translation and translation process and obsess over the Book of Mormon's. They then are free to chalk up anything in the Bible they don't like to "bad translation" and need not be troubled by it while ignoring actual questions of translation. It's a magic circle where what Mormons believe becomes what is translated correctly.

I hope that everyone feels free to take up any questions they like, or to introduce different ones.

[UtahDan]

Not that I'm complaining, it's just that preaching tolerance, like preaching against slavery, is such low hanging fruit. The whole reason this article is being discussed is because of the novel way it approaches what faith is, and how it contemplates what appropriate faith is. I like how Indy and Santos--known contrarians--really seize the meat of the argument to discuss. SIEQ is also known for his unorthodox thoughts on LDS issues, which makes his posts interesting, except he gets quite conventional (in the world sense, not in the LDS sense) in his analysis of someone else's unusual LDS thoughts.

You lost me here. Millet's whole point is that the only tolerable view, and the only one that is "saving," is that all of the foundational claims of the church are literally true. My point was that other views should be tolerated, not least of all because he is wrong. Tolerance is only low hanging fruit when everyone agrees that we should be more tolerant, which is patently not something at least Millet agrees with, though I think in the end most people here agree with it.

[jay santos]

I love my middle of the road brethren. I've been rethinking my testimony that was about as literal and fundamentalist as they come 15 years ago and when it's all said and done, I might end up further away from that ideal than anyone that's posted in this thread. So trust me when I say I don't judge anyone on this path.

I'm going to transition into a little Goatnapper speak right here. You middle of the roaders: it takes great intestinal fortitude to be a non-literalist in the Mormon church. It takes grapefruit size balls to smile through the three hour block, do your home teaching, pay your 10%, and serve in your callings while thinking Moroni was created in Joseph Smith's imagination and maybe even Jesus was just a good leader with a progressive philosophy. You guys are heroes. But then you whine and cry when someone like Millet says your belief is not as ideal or powerful as someone who believes Jesus is the Son of God and Joseph Smith received his only true priesthood at the hand of an angel. Millet's beating you with a club? Come on guys. Nut it up. You know you're outside the box. Make your points and you'll have your followers. And people will always respect you for not leaving the church while not believing it. But don't try to take it too far. It's not just Millet. Elder Holland pounded the pulpit, producing tears, to attempt to force you into submission. I applaud your efforts to blaze new trails, but do it with courage.

[jay santos]

P.S. if Millet and De Groote are attacking straw men, then why take offense? Maybe they weren't even addressing you?

[Sleeping in EQ]

I love my middle of the road brethren. I've been rethinking my testimony that was about as literal and fundamentalist as they come 15 years ago and when it's all said and done, I might end up further away from that ideal than anyone that's posted in this thread. So trust me when I say I don't judge anyone on this path.

I'm going to transition into a little Goatnapper speak right here. You middle of the roaders: it takes great intestinal fortitude to be a non-literalist in the Mormon church. It takes grapefruit size balls to smile through the three hour block, do your home teaching, pay your 10%, and serve in your callings while thinking Moroni was created in Joseph Smith's imagination and maybe even Jesus was just a good leader with a progressive philosophy. You guys are heroes. But then you whine and cry when someone like Millet says your belief is not as ideal or powerful as someone who believes Jesus is the Son of God and Joseph Smith received his only true priesthood at the hand of an angel. Millet's beating you with a club? Come on guys. Nut it up. You know you're outside the box. Make your points and you'll have your followers. And people will always respect you for not leaving the church while not believing it. But don't try to take it too far. It's not just Millet. Elder Holland pounded the pulpit, producing tears, to attempt to force you into submission. I applaud your efforts to blaze new trails, but do it with courage.

You do realize that you are contributing to the force of my argument?

[jay santos]

You lost me here. Millet's whole point is that the only tolerable view, and the only one that is "saving," is that all of the foundational claims of the church are literally true. My point was that other views should be tolerated, not least of all because he is wrong. Tolerance is only low hanging fruit when everyone agrees that we should be more tolerant, which is patently not something at least Millet agrees with, though I think in the end most people here agree with it.

Question. Let's be specific. Maybe we're talking past each other.

Millet has a belief that salvation is only through
a. Jesus Christ's atonement and victory over sin and death
b. specifically through the saving ordinances that Jesus Christ has designed and given exclusive authorization to the priesthood of the LDS church to perform

Those two beliefs are self-defined as "saving", so any rejection of those two beliefs would be non-saving. No?