Saving Faith

[RobinFinderson]

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.

But what is power?

Are you talking about the power to inspire individual courage to live a good life? If this is the case, then both views are equally capable of inspiring this behavior.

Are you talking about limits to one's ultimate spiritual destiny? Built right into Mormon doctrine is the idea that accountability is based on one's knowledge, and that all people (including apostates) will have the chance to make an informed choice about what to believe after the whole 'absolute truth' is known.

[marsupial]

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.

To the General Authority lurking here: Please pay close attention to this thread: http://cougaruteforum.com/showthread...light=garments

Please PM me if you need any suggestions for a garment-redesign. I am pretty sure that Mrs. Funk, SuperGabers and Gidget would help in this endeavor as well.

Thanks.

[Indy Coug]

To the General Authority lurking here....

[Katy Lied]

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.

I'm very appreciative of your windbaggery, if that's what people call it.

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 find the idea interesting, whether Millett brings it up or you bring them up. I realize I am new to this arena, which is why I enjoy your thoughts on the matter. I'm sorry that something so novel to me is so passe for you.

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 find this a more interesting starting point, and I agree with your concluding paragraph, which I have been musing over for the last month.

[Jacob]

Referring to this claim

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.

[tooblue]

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?

http://www.cougaruteforum.com/showthread.php?p=182393#poststop

[tooblue]

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:

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.

Very interesting thoughts. Your post also made me think of this cinematic moment -- is religion wall E and science eve?