I think I would agree with your assertion that a rigid approach to questions about
* Scriptures and prophets
* Early LDS history
* Evidence regarding the BoM origin and narrative
is most likely to result in a rejection of some or all of these things. That is to say, those who are more "flexible" or who take a more complex view are less likely to reject the Church's claims.
For me, this position raises a couple questions:
1) Which approach has the church officially and unofficially endorsed at various points in its history, a more simple and rigid, or a more complex and flexible approach?
2) Is it not the case with ANY proposition that a more flexible and complex approach is more likely to result in acceptance, partial or full, of the proposition? If so, then it seems that the difference in acceptance due to approach has little to do with the actual truth-value of the proposition.
I do look forward to the rest of your series.
Ben JonesApril 1, 2013
One of the things that drove me away from Christianity when I was young was looking at the historical records and seeing all the un-Christian things done by "Christians" over the years including the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Holocaust, slavery, etc. One of the things that helped me come back to Christianity and eventually to Mormonism was the realization that when "Christians" were not following the teachings of Christ, it upset me because I really believed those teachings and truly wanted people to live by them.
laverl wilhelmMarch 22, 2013
Thank you for pursuing this line of thinking. I am looking forward to the ensuing articles. I love the concept of the VIN diagram. The more we enlarge our own circle of understanding, the more we can see that we have in common with other people's circles.
BlaineMarch 22, 2013
Excellent topic, Michael! Helping people recognize and process the fact that some of our Latter-day paradigms will periodically be exposed as faulty understandings of our Heavenly Father's plan is a sorely needed and worthwhile effort. The Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ is based upon ongoing revelation, line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little - there a little. I look forward to your next installments.
TerryMarch 20, 2013
Really looking forward to this series. Michael is articulating and analyzing a very prevalent struggle so many of us are going through in bridging an original simplistic, theoretical, nirvana view to the messy complex reality we face in our own lives and additional information we come to read and discover in the lives of our church leaders and teachings of doctrine vs policy etc over centuries. The beautiful powerful and simple truths of the gospel mean more to me know in application to the messy reality of real life and I appreciate our prophets and leading brothren's lives and leadership even more as I can relate to them better knowing it wasn't simple and black and white for any of them either.
Sue NeimoyerMarch 20, 2013
Thanks for this article. I may be one of the few who have rarely, if ever, found "logical thinking" at odds with spiritual things. Nor do I particularly find science at odds with religion. For example, in regards to the creation, I think we have to bow to the idea that "God's ways are not our ways," as it says in the scriptures. We don't have a clue about how He did it, nor how long those creative periods were (particularly considering that the Hebrew analogy that a day with God is as a thousand years is a linguistic one - 1000 was as high as they could count, so the analogy may not be literal at all). What really matters is that God DID create the earth, and if those creative periods were millions of years in length, that doesn't decrease God's divinity at all.
Comments | Return to Story
lasthopApril 1, 2013
I think I would agree with your assertion that a rigid approach to questions about * Scriptures and prophets * Early LDS history * Evidence regarding the BoM origin and narrative is most likely to result in a rejection of some or all of these things. That is to say, those who are more "flexible" or who take a more complex view are less likely to reject the Church's claims. For me, this position raises a couple questions: 1) Which approach has the church officially and unofficially endorsed at various points in its history, a more simple and rigid, or a more complex and flexible approach? 2) Is it not the case with ANY proposition that a more flexible and complex approach is more likely to result in acceptance, partial or full, of the proposition? If so, then it seems that the difference in acceptance due to approach has little to do with the actual truth-value of the proposition. I do look forward to the rest of your series.
Ben JonesApril 1, 2013
One of the things that drove me away from Christianity when I was young was looking at the historical records and seeing all the un-Christian things done by "Christians" over the years including the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Holocaust, slavery, etc. One of the things that helped me come back to Christianity and eventually to Mormonism was the realization that when "Christians" were not following the teachings of Christ, it upset me because I really believed those teachings and truly wanted people to live by them.
laverl wilhelmMarch 22, 2013
Thank you for pursuing this line of thinking. I am looking forward to the ensuing articles. I love the concept of the VIN diagram. The more we enlarge our own circle of understanding, the more we can see that we have in common with other people's circles.
BlaineMarch 22, 2013
Excellent topic, Michael! Helping people recognize and process the fact that some of our Latter-day paradigms will periodically be exposed as faulty understandings of our Heavenly Father's plan is a sorely needed and worthwhile effort. The Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ is based upon ongoing revelation, line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little - there a little. I look forward to your next installments.
TerryMarch 20, 2013
Really looking forward to this series. Michael is articulating and analyzing a very prevalent struggle so many of us are going through in bridging an original simplistic, theoretical, nirvana view to the messy complex reality we face in our own lives and additional information we come to read and discover in the lives of our church leaders and teachings of doctrine vs policy etc over centuries. The beautiful powerful and simple truths of the gospel mean more to me know in application to the messy reality of real life and I appreciate our prophets and leading brothren's lives and leadership even more as I can relate to them better knowing it wasn't simple and black and white for any of them either.
Sue NeimoyerMarch 20, 2013
Thanks for this article. I may be one of the few who have rarely, if ever, found "logical thinking" at odds with spiritual things. Nor do I particularly find science at odds with religion. For example, in regards to the creation, I think we have to bow to the idea that "God's ways are not our ways," as it says in the scriptures. We don't have a clue about how He did it, nor how long those creative periods were (particularly considering that the Hebrew analogy that a day with God is as a thousand years is a linguistic one - 1000 was as high as they could count, so the analogy may not be literal at all). What really matters is that God DID create the earth, and if those creative periods were millions of years in length, that doesn't decrease God's divinity at all.
ADD A COMMENT