Orson Scott Card: Nothing to fear from the truth

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • LA Ute
    Receiver of Memory
    • Nov 2008
    • 19512

    #1

    Orson Scott Card: Nothing to fear from the truth

    Here's the column. It should be a catalyst for some interesting discussion. A couple of excerpts:

    Without realizing it, I had been letting my testimony slip into a dangerous condition of contingency. That is, I had been letting the accusations of traitors and anti-Mormons raise doubts in my own heart about whether the actions of church leaders had always been wise or good — and then I had been letting those doubts reach into the deeper place where my faith in the gospel resided.

    So, with Professor Allen's example before me, I leaned back and took a deep breath and thought about things.

    From years of study before and during my mission, as well as personal experiences, I knew that God lived and this church was the chief organ of his work in the world.

    Just because I was now finding out details about church history that had not been taught to me in Sunday School or in some of the official histories did not mean that the things I had been taught were not true.

    In short, why should I let my own previous ignorance make me doubt things about the gospel that I had ample reason to be certain of?

    I learned to approach church history, right up to the present, with this attitude: This happened … and the church is true.

    Mistakes, misjudgments, speculations about doctrine and some indefensible actions were done by members of the church. But the imperfections of those called to the service of the Lord never imply that God's hand is not in the church.

    Instead, they affirm the true principle that the Lord does not turn his followers into sock puppets or ventriloquists' dummies. People are always free to make their choices — even bad ones — and to hold on to their misunderstandings.
    It's a good, candid read, and I think is a fine statement of the way many thoughtful believers look at Church history.
    Last edited by LA Ute; 07-15-2010, 12:03 PM.
    “There is a great deal of difference in believing something still, and believing it again.”
    ― W.H. Auden


    "God made the angels to show His splendour - as He made animals for innocence and plants for their simplicity. But men and women He made to serve Him wittily, in the tangle of their minds."
    -- Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons


    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery
  • jay santos
    Senior Member
    • Nov 2008
    • 13652

    #2
    Originally posted by LA Ute View Post
    Here's the column. It should be a catalyst for some interesting discussion. A couple of excerpts:



    It's a good, candid read, and I think is a fine statement of the way many thoughtful believers look at Church history.
    A couple challenges.

    1. He says
    I had been letting the accusations of traitors and anti-Mormons raise doubts in my own heart about whether the actions of church leaders had always been wise or good
    I think "wise or good" is purposefully misleading language. For me, it doesn't matter if I deem it wise or good. If it's TRUE, then my opinion of it doesn't matter much. It's my responsibility to get my will in line with the will of God. My quest is to understand whether or not the teachings and actions of church leaders (specifically Joseph Smith) were TRUE.

    2. Relying on a spiritual impression you had as a youth may be a fine thing to do, and I don't judge someone who does that. Draws the line and says "I knew it as a youth and nothing's changed!" Alternatively, I think it's also rational even faithful to acknowledge that many people in the world and throughout history have had similar spiritual impressions of truths that all conflict. Just like Joseph questioned the apparent discord in what should have been unity among the churches that existed in his time, it's OK for a person to question the discord among people who claim spiritual witness as a basis for truth and search for something more.

    Comment

    • DapperDan
      Whut?
      • Mar 2010
      • 1132

      #3
      I'm not sure one can honestly look for the truth if you've already determined what it is before you start looking.

      Comment

      • statman
        Rabblerouser
        • Aug 2009
        • 2799

        #4
        Originally posted by DapperDan View Post
        I'm not sure one can honestly look for the truth if you've already determined what it is before you start looking.
        But with that restriction, you'll never be able to accept the Truth when you find it. It always has to be able to stand future inquiry, and therefor you can never accept it as Truth. That attitude predetermines a fruitless search...

        Comment

        • LA Ute
          Receiver of Memory
          • Nov 2008
          • 19512

          #5
          Originally posted by DapperDan View Post
          I'm not sure one can honestly look for the truth if you've already determined what it is before you start looking.
          I don't understand your point. Are you saying that one can never come to a conclusion about the truth?

          Originally posted by jay santos View Post
          A couple challenges.

          1. He says I think "wise or good" is purposefully misleading language. For me, it doesn't matter if I deem it wise or good. If it's TRUE, then my opinion of it doesn't matter much. It's my responsibility to get my will in line with the will of God. My quest is to understand whether or not the teachings and actions of church leaders (specifically Joseph Smith) were TRUE.
          When Card refers to "wise or good," he is referring (I think) to the actions of church leaders, not the LS gospel message. Do you see that? Or am I just misreading him?
          “There is a great deal of difference in believing something still, and believing it again.”
          ― W.H. Auden


          "God made the angels to show His splendour - as He made animals for innocence and plants for their simplicity. But men and women He made to serve Him wittily, in the tangle of their minds."
          -- Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons


          "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
          --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

          Comment

          • Donuthole
            Official Outgayer
            • Nov 2008
            • 25248

            #6
            Link not working for me.
            Prepare to put mustard on those words, for you will soon be consuming them, along with this slice of humble pie that comes direct from the oven of shame set at gas mark “egg on your face”! -- Moss

            There's three rules that I live by: never get less than twelve hours sleep; never play cards with a guy who's got the same first name as a city; and never go near a lady's got a tattoo of a dagger on her body. Now you stick to that, everything else is cream cheese. --Coach Finstock

            Comment

            • DapperDan
              Whut?
              • Mar 2010
              • 1132

              #7
              Originally posted by LA Ute View Post
              I don't understand your point. Are you saying that one can never come to a conclusion about the truth?
              I know many people have the basic opinion Card espouses it's just not one I can get on board with. To me his article is disingenuous. I don't see him having any interest in truth beyond what he's already decided. It's like finding the solution to a problem before determining the cause.

              Comment

              • jay santos
                Senior Member
                • Nov 2008
                • 13652

                #8
                Originally posted by LA Ute View Post

                When Card refers to "wise or good," he is referring (I think) to the actions of church leaders, not the LS gospel message. Do you see that? Or am I just misreading him?
                He seems to be. And I know he was involved with all the Prop 8 defense and all that, so that's what I assumed. But then he says

                Just because I was now finding out details about church history that had not been taught to me in Sunday School or in some of the official histories did not mean that the things I had been taught were not true.
                I'm addressing that part of it.

                The Prop 8 thing and other stuff church leaders say that I may or may not agree with doesn't really bother or interest me. The heavier issues for me are the historical issues.

                Comment

                • DapperDan
                  Whut?
                  • Mar 2010
                  • 1132

                  #9
                  Originally posted by statman View Post
                  But with that restriction, you'll never be able to accept the Truth when you find it. It always has to be able to stand future inquiry, and therefor you can never accept it as Truth. That attitude predetermines a fruitless search...
                  Is there such a thing a permanent truth? Even religious truths change over time.

                  Comment

                  • All-American
                    Right, as Usual
                    • Nov 2008
                    • 15657

                    #10
                    Originally posted by statman View Post
                    But with that restriction, you'll never be able to accept the Truth when you find it. It always has to be able to stand future inquiry, and therefor you can never accept it as Truth. That attitude predetermines a fruitless search...
                    I think the problem is the danger that you'll keep looking until you find what you want to accept as truth, as opposed to accepting the truth no matter what it is you find.

                    Litmus test. A lifelong member of the church has been baptized, gone to the temple, served a mission, been married in the temple, etc. Said person prays earnestly, fasts, studies, etc., but never has an experience that he can even remotely feel is the witness of the spirit testifying that the Book of Mormon is true. Throughout his studies, he comes to the conclusion that the church just can't be true, even if it is good and noble. Said person decides to leave.

                    How do we respond to such a person? Do we tell him to keep looking until he finds "the truth"? Or are we comfortable with the idea that one person will look at the same facts, feelings, figures, and so forth as another person and come to a different conclusion? And if so, will we ask him to refuse to act in conformity to the truth as he is able to understand it?
                    τὸν ἥλιον ἀνατέλλοντα πλείονες ἢ δυόμενον προσκυνοῦσιν

                    Comment

                    • LA Ute
                      Receiver of Memory
                      • Nov 2008
                      • 19512

                      #11
                      Originally posted by Donuthole View Post
                      Link not working for me.
                      Odd. I just checked it and it worked for me. Try this:

                      “There is a great deal of difference in believing something still, and believing it again.”
                      ― W.H. Auden


                      "God made the angels to show His splendour - as He made animals for innocence and plants for their simplicity. But men and women He made to serve Him wittily, in the tangle of their minds."
                      -- Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons


                      "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
                      --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

                      Comment

                      • LA Ute
                        Receiver of Memory
                        • Nov 2008
                        • 19512

                        #12
                        Originally posted by DapperDan View Post
                        Is there such a thing a permanent truth? Even religious truths change over time.
                        Can you give some examples of what you mean? To me the existence of God, the divine sonship of Christ, the divinity of Joseph Smith's mission, our need for a redeemer, the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, to name a few, are truths that are permanent.
                        “There is a great deal of difference in believing something still, and believing it again.”
                        ― W.H. Auden


                        "God made the angels to show His splendour - as He made animals for innocence and plants for their simplicity. But men and women He made to serve Him wittily, in the tangle of their minds."
                        -- Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons


                        "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
                        --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

                        Comment

                        • DapperDan
                          Whut?
                          • Mar 2010
                          • 1132

                          #13
                          Originally posted by LA Ute View Post
                          Can you give some examples of what you mean? To me the existence of God, the divine sonship of Christ, the divinity of Joseph Smith's mission, our need for a redeemer, the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, to name a few, are truths that are permanent.
                          In mormon circles: Blacks and the priesthood, polygamy, the WoW, Adam-God, etc. The very nature of ongoing revelation keeps the door open for any truth to be set aside for a new one.

                          Comment

                          • wally
                            <><><><><><><><>
                            • Jun 2010
                            • 4137

                            #14
                            Originally posted by DapperDan View Post
                            In mormon circles: Blacks and the priesthood, polygamy, the WoW, Adam-God, etc. The very nature of ongoing revelation keeps the door open for any truth to be set aside for a new one.
                            To me all these things are the muddy fingerprints that we mortals leave on the perfect gem that is Gods truth.

                            Comment

                            • LA Ute
                              Receiver of Memory
                              • Nov 2008
                              • 19512

                              #15
                              Originally posted by DapperDan View Post
                              In mormon circles: Blacks and the priesthood, polygamy, the WoW, Adam-God, etc. The very nature of ongoing revelation keeps the door open for any truth to be set aside for a new one.
                              Good point. It's been said that trying to state our doctrine is like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall. I guess the debate is whether the examples you give are the sort of fundamental "religious truths" on which one bases one's testimony.
                              Last edited by LA Ute; 07-15-2010, 12:43 PM.
                              “There is a great deal of difference in believing something still, and believing it again.”
                              ― W.H. Auden


                              "God made the angels to show His splendour - as He made animals for innocence and plants for their simplicity. But men and women He made to serve Him wittily, in the tangle of their minds."
                              -- Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons


                              "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
                              --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

                              Comment

                              Working...