Saving Faith

[UtahDan]

I think you've completely mischaracterized Millet here. He is balking at the increasing equivalency being given to these alternate views.

I know and my answer is still that no one is giving them equivalence. Rather, they are engaging in the level they are able to. Telling them that right action is not enough but that they must also conceptualize things in just the right way is not correct, in my view, and pushed people toward the door who are trying to stay in.

[Jeff Lebowski]

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.

This post deserves some credit. SIEQ may not have liked it, but it made me laugh.

[UtahDan]

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?

If that were all he was saying I think I would agree. Certainly that is what the church teaches. What is also saying that puts me off is that a person cannot say "I just don't know about some of these things, but I am going to act as though they are literally true." For Millet, that is not "saving faith." I think the very strong implication is that unless you can bring yourself to his kind of belief you may as well not bother.

[Sleeping in EQ]

You're avoiding. You know what I mean with my terms. If I try to define them for you, I'll use more unclear terms. Then you'll ask me to define those terms. And so on. And then in the end you'll tell me, this is why we can't even answer the question. We can't even agree on terms.

I'm not avoiding anything. I do not know what you mean with your terms. You may not know what you mean either, which is one of the beauties of the definition process.

I'll give you my input (just as you will have given me yours), and that alone will set us on the path to understanding one another. You already know I'm not a relativist, so there is little fear of our discussion digressing into a meta-discussion of the over-determination of words.

I'll ask questions for clarity's sake and encourage you to do the same.

[RobinFinderson]

I think you've completely mischaracterized Millet here. He is balking at the increasing equivalency being given to these alternate views.

If people were teaching something along the lines of "if you can at least accept what Christ taught would be good to implement in your own life, that is a valuable initial step of faith", I don't think Millet would object.

But they ARE equivalent. Look, once someone's world view has set, it is what it is, forever. Very little can change it. You take, for example, the person who has abandoned the notion of a 'magical world' (miracles, visiting angels, stones that translate, etc), and the fullness of that person's faith will be something very different than that of a Millet. The two faiths ARE equivalent in one sense -- they both represent the fullness of an individual's faith. They are also equivalent in another sense -- neither view is damning.

What does equivalence even mean here?

As an interesting aside, the Millet essay, as well as the fist pounding Elder Holland talk, both suggest that the leadership is interested in engaging/discouraging this particular kind of thinking. A LOT of this kind of thinking happens here on CUF. The Mormon world is small. How many places are there where this kind of thinking is articulated in a public way? It wouldn't surprise me a bit to find out that the LDS leadership has a finger on the pulse of CUF's religion forum.

[Jarid in Cedar]

Maybe I am. I'm open minded, but in the end, I'm an absolutist. Even if the absolute truth is "it doesn't matter", I still believe there is an absolute truth.

I have a core of absolutism inside me as well. For all of the shades of gray that exist in the world, in the end the LDS church is what it says it is or it is not.

[jay santos]

If that were all he was saying I think I would agree. Certainly that is what the church teaches. What is also saying that puts me off is that a person cannot say "I just don't know about some of these things, but I am going to act as though they are literally true." For Millet, that is not "saving faith." I think the very strong implication is that unless you can bring yourself to his kind of belief you may as well not bother.

Thanks for answering. I see two distinct groups. I've been addressing #2. But you may actually be describing #1.

1. Faith is weak. Wants to believe but can't. Doesn't hold strong opposing views to standard church teachings. Has not made up their mind. Has doubt. Doesn't teach against the church's standard teachings and if they do voice an alternate opinion, it's done humbly with a mind open to being corrected. This could be someone in the church or a potential investigator. This person's views are not considered wrong just weak.

2. Has strong views that oppose the standard church teachings. Has made up their mind. Isn't interested in changing it, but wants the church to change its mind. Doesn't doubt--has a strong, well-defined belief of an absolute truth that is in direct conflict with church's teachings. This person could be a member of the church or a member of an opposing church. Either way this person's views should not be considered equal.

[Jeff Lebowski]

As an interesting aside, the Millet essay, as well as the fist pounding Elder Holland talk, both suggest that the leadership is interested in engaging/discouraging this particular kind of thinking. A LOT of this kind of thinking happens here on CUF. The Mormon world is small. How many places are there where this kind of thinking is articulated in a public way? It wouldn't surprise me a bit to find out that the LDS leadership has a finger on the pulse of CUF's religion forum.

Please... We aren't that unique.

[RobinFinderson]

Please... We aren't that unique.

You can probably count the number of prominent Mormon-discussion boards on two hands. When ordered by daily activity, I'd bet CUF is in the top ten.

[Babs]

Robin, according to google, we rank somewhere behind feministmormonhousewives and mormonrecovery.org. lol.

[RobinFinderson]

Robin, according to google, we rank somewhere behind feministmormonhousewives and mormonrecovery.org. lol.

I said top ten, and I wouldn't include the Mormon Recovery site, since that isn't for active members. If you take the top ten discussion sites where there is significant daily discussion about Mormon doctrine/experience/faith, and I would still bet that CUF ranks top ten. Would it surprise anyone to find out that the church keeps tabs on the top ten (at a minimum) discussion sites?

[UtahDan]

Thanks for answering. I see two distinct groups. I've been addressing #2. But you may actually be describing #1.


2. Has strong views that oppose the standard church teachings. Has made up their mind. Isn't interested in changing it, but wants the church to change its mind. Doesn't doubt--has a strong, well-defined belief of an absolute truth that is in direct conflict with church's teachings. This person could be a member of the church or a member of an opposing church. Either way this person's views should not be considered equal.

I have tried to be as clear as I can that I'm not talking about anyone asking the church to change its teachings. Sorry if that was unclear. I just think there are a lot of people who don't "know" but are doing the best they can, and may have even come to an unknowing equilibrium where they are agnostic as to certain things. But they are trying to live the gospel. I actually think that but for the pressure to say that one "knows" most people would cop to be in that boat at least on some issue (I could be totally wrong). I hear Millet saying that these folks ought not bother because they faith isn't saving faith.

It may well be true that he is striking at what Indy has suggested, the idea that there are those who are advocating that trying to know is not something worth doing. I think a lot of people are saying they have tried and failed, but I don't really hear anyone saying that. Which is why I am concerned that in knocking down that strawman Millet is delivering a message that will land almost exclusively on the group I'm talking about.

[Indy Coug]

Sure you do. We'll be talking past one another until we do. Moreover, everybody's ideological assumptions will be revealed in the process and the circular thinking that so often corrupts such discussions will be avoided.

The process of defining terms is a great opportunity to face our own assumptions and realize that it usually isn't the objects in question, but our relation to the objects in question (i.e., our interpreations of those objects and of what they mean for the human experience), that we use to live by and to judge others.

OK, let me try Jay's point again.

Ultimate Truth = A

Person X: "I believe A in its entirety"

Person Y: "I don't believe A in its entirety, but I think A can be useful in some limited respect"


One is absolutist and one is a relativist. You have stated a belief that absolute truth exists, so does the absolutist or relativist position possess greater power?

[RobinFinderson]

OK, let me try Jay's point again.

Ultimate Truth = A

Person X: "I believe A in its entirety"

Person Y: "I don't believe A in its entirety, but I think A can be useful in some more limited respect"


One is absolutist and one is a relativist. You have stated a belief that absolute truth exists, so is the absolutist or relativist position possess greater power?

They are equivalent! Both are absolutist in the sense that they are both exactly as far as one is willing to believe. They are also both equivalent in the sense that neither one will save a person's soul more than the other.

And what does it mean to possess power? Both can be equally powerful on an individual level.

[Indy Coug]

They are equivalent! Both are absolutist in the sense that they are both exactly as far as one is willing to believe. They are also both equivalent in the sense that neither one will save a person's soul more than the other.

And what does it mean to possess power? Both can be equally powerful on an individual level.

Not if you concede that absolute truth exists. Who possesses more power?

Person A - Quantum physicist
Person B - Quantum mechanic
Person C - The person who proves the Theory of Everything so that it is no longer a theory and perfectly brings the two scientific theories into harmony.