In a recent post I talked about a book I read called Being Wrong: Adventures in the Margin of Error by Kathryn Schulz. In the book, she mentions the 3 assumptions we use to explain why other people are wrong (and yet don’t apply those same assumptions to ourselves). As I contemplated these 3 assumptions, I thought about the reasons I’ve read that TBMs claim non-TBMs are wrong, and the reasons ex-Mos use to claim TBMs are wrong. Interestingly, they are pretty much the same reasons.
- Ignorance. “They don’t know what I know. If they knew what I know, they’d come to the same conclusions.”
- TBM example: It’s unfathomable to a TBM that someone can reach different conclusions about the church if they are exposed to the same set of facts and/or experiences.
- Ex-Mo example: Likewise, it’s unfathomable to an ex-Mo that someone could be exposed to the facts that have led to his/her disaffection and come to a different conclusion.
- Idiocy. Once you establish that the other person is in possession of the same facts you are the next assumption to explain why they are wrong is that the person with the opposing view is just too stupid to process the facts accurately.
- TBM example: Sometimes a TBM will say that the ex-Mo has been “duped” or led astray by simplistic arguments that undermine faith.
- Ex-Mo example: An ex-Mo might say that the TBM never really examined his/her beliefs or that s/he was sucked in by the anti-questioning, authoritarian view of the church. There is a criticism that church members “turn off their brain.”
- Evil. If you accept that the person with the other view is aware of the same set of facts and is not a stupid person incapable of processing the information, usually the last assumption is that they are arguing in bad faith. IOW, they are evil or dishonest about their conclusions.
- TBM example: There is a tendency to criticize an ex-Mo as having left because of “wanting to sin.” I have also heard some say, “Oh, s/he knows it’s true, but just won’t admit it.”
- Ex-Mo example: There are some Ex-Mos who would accuse leaders and others of being disingenuous in their claims about the church or of deliberately covering up.
Of course, these 3 assumptions can apply to really any situation in which 2 people disagree. Consider politics – you can quite easily see Republicans and Democrats making these same sorts of claims about each other’s cluelessness, stupidity and impure motives. Or consider arguments between scientists and religionists. These 3 assumptions rear their ugly heads time and time again.
Name-calling aside, how do we bridge the divide? I think the key is to question those 3 assumptions we make about others. Ask ourselves:
- What am I ignoring? Am I lacking some information that I want to ignore because it differs from my view? Am I aware of all the facts?
- What am I assuming? Am I thinking through things correctly and logically, questioning my assumptions? Am I open-minded about the facts?
- What do I get from holding this viewpoint (WIIFM)? Am I genuine in my motives? Am I being completely honest with myself about my biases?
What do you think? Which of these do you see others doing? Which are you prone to do? Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
The same stuff happens in marriage, and one blames the other who blames the other and around and around and around we go. Frankly, my brain just shuts down whenever I hear any of the examples you mentioned above, whether TBM or ExMo or whomever. I think both sides are pretty similar, actually. Of course, telling an ExMo that he/she is just like a TBM or vice versa will result in just continuing this pattern “He/she doesn’t have the spirit!” “They ignore science and reason!” And still around and around we go. It will keep going on the general level I think. On the individual level, people need to tune in to each other, put their own stuff aside, and listen to underlying stuff – fears, meaning, etc. I think I’m applying marital stuff to this conflict, but in some ways it’s similar. Maybe I’ll submit something to Sunstone sometimes on it, lol.
I think in some cases its’ a game called stonewalling. Some people like to use the emotional distance so they don’t have to involve themselves. I’ve know local leaders to use this method a lot. Buy behaving this way they can dis-avow any knowledge of any given situation.
Hawkgirl,
I don’t know that I have commented on your posts before but you are one my absolute favorites. Thanks for your efforts.
Has Being Wrong altered your experience in church meetings? After reading it I find myself more aware of the prevalence of absolutes. Given the Mormon notion of possessing truth, there seems to be little room for questioning assumptions.In fact, so much class discussion is premised on givens that attempting to question their innate validity is awkward and generally unwelcome. Our church culture just doesn’t seem to allow for much of that. Is that an issue for you or are your blogging and church attendance two separate spheres?
Thought-provoking post! Most religous and political disputes involve two people neither of whom understands the subject thoroughly, yet each insisting she has 100% of the truth.
Admitting we might not be totally right and being willing to listen to those with different opinions requires more humility than most mortals possess.
Something else I was thinking about.
Extremes in ideas or issues are never right. No matter how flat a pancake is, there is always two sides. The truth generally lies somewhere in the middle.
Clearly we have been reading the same book.
I think it is interesting that ONLY other people can be wrong. We cannot assert, “I believe that there are twelve signs in the Zodiac, but I am wrong.” Such a phrase is nonsense. We can only say that our past self was wrong.
In matters of fact, it is clear that if two persons hold two differing opinions, only one can be right.
For example, only those requiring a nearly unachievable level of evidential certainty would disagree with the statements, “Joseph Smith Jr. lived from 1805 to 1844.” or “Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii.”
On the other hand, it is entirely possible for individuals to legitimately disagree regarding the truthfulness of the statements, “Joseph Smith Jr. was a prophet of God.” or “Barack Hussein Obama is a citizen of the United States.” as opinions as to what constitutes a “prophet” or “citizen of the United States” can vary widely.
On a less fractious note, two individuals may both legitimately believe “that pie belongs to me”, since the concept “belongs to me” is an artificial human construction without independent existence.
The statement “In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints as it exists today, women are not ordained Apostles.” can be shown to be certainly true, by examining the practices of the Church, and accepting its definitions.
On the other hand, “In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, women can receive an apostolic testimony.” would be considered untrue by the vast majority of the world, as no one could possibly receive an apostolic testimony as defined by LDS doctrines in their worldview.
When I’m feeling particularly snarky, I like to pile it all on and accuse opposing groups of ignorance, idiocy, AND evil. 😉
I really appreciated this post. Whereas I know I’ll probably be guilty, and probably will be guilty of these assumptions and accusations, recognition of our own weaknesses is the first step to taking responsibility for change, and for elevating our own public discourse.
Interesting post hawkgrrrl–
The premise of the book agrees with my life’s experience, to an extent. I think this model begins to fail when it is applied to religion though. The reason being, it doesn’t account for the interaction of the “Spirit”.
With that said, I’m sure there will be disagreement from some who read my comment. That’s OK, we’re all free to state our thoughts, beliefs, disbeliefs, experience, and so forth. I wouldn’t have it any other way.
I think most RM’s will know what I’m mean, that is, if they have stayed close to the Lord since their mission.
As a missionary, I observed many of the people we taught touched by the power of the Spirit. They would tells us that they could feel something special when we taught (a few had dreams that had powerful influence on them). If they didn’t “reject” the Spirit they felt, their entire life would change.
Many were not willing to make the change, a few did. It’s been more than forty years since I was on my mission. I’ve had contact in recent years and know that among those few who accepted the Spirit some died in the faith, and others are enduring to the end.
I think some of accepting whether someone else is “wrong” depends on your viewpoint.
For example: I may have a religious viewpoint that accepts that there are multiple ways back to God. In this sense, I may feel like the LDS Church is wrong for me, yet also accept that someone else may be right for belonging to it given their particular circumstances.
Other viewpoints may not allow for this, however. We do hear talks from our LDS Church leaders appreciating the good in other faiths, but the underlying premise of the LDS Church is that nothing else is quite good enough (ie. wrong). At the end of the day, someone must have a baptism done by the LDS Church (either in mortality or vicariously), and all of the other ordinances in a similar fashion. So, by definition, everyone who is NOT LDS is wrong.
HG, interesting stuff. Of course underlying the three-pronged argument is that only one of the parties is right and the other is wrong.
Is there room for different experiences which color our perception of the evidence differently? (This may be related to Jared’s mention of the influence of the spirit, but perhaps more broadly.)
For me, the fact that two people can look at virtually the same facts and draw different conclusions is evidence that there’s more than one way to interpret the data, depending on our experiential lenses.
#9 Mike S–
I agree with what you’ve said, I would just add the following scripture for perspective.
Incidentally, some believe that the celestial kingdom will be the largest of the three, they cite this scripture:
7 Thus came the voice of the Lord unto me, saying: All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God;
8 Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom;
9 For I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts.
10 And I also beheld that all children who die before they arrive at the years of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven.
(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 137:7 – 10)
Jared:
That supports my comment – that on a fundamental & doctrinal basis, the LDS faith doesn’t accept that anyone can ultimately return to God (ie. be in the Celestial kingdom) unless they accept the LDS Church. Therefore, everyone else is wrong.
We may try to soften it a bit with scriptures like you quoted above, but at the end of the day, everyone else is wrong. Period.
re 10:
Paul,
Maybe I’m not reading you correctly, but it seems to me that
is not in any way mutually exclusive to
It just points to me that people care more about subjectivity than objectivity.
Jared:
There is a difference between making a change to align ones life with the gospel, and making changes to align ones life with the church. They are not the same thing.
Quite often the church is an impediment to living the gospel. Just ask Ron Poelman.
As an example, there’s a video supplement somewhere on LDS.org (I looked for it, but couldn’t find it) that talks about baptism. Our stake used it in our local “baptism preview” meeting as a way to show the importance of baptism. It’s a converted film strip, with still images of a couple of kids in some latin/south American country. Generally, it was a good video, but I was surprised how much it talked about baptism as being important to join the church. The number of times it mentioned Christ, or getting baptized to follow His example, versus mentioning the Church was stark. Christ was virtually non-existent in that video. It was all about baptism as a vessel to join the church.
Some might not notice, or care about, that difference, but I’m sensitive to it. Baptism isn’t about church – it’s about Christ and His gospel.
Mike’s comment about the subtle undercurrents are unfortunately true. Far more many testimonies are borne about someone’s “knowledge” of the truthfulness of the church than a testimony about Christ or his redeeming grace.
I think we’re the Church of the Latter-day Pharisees – as defined by our own bible dictionary:
But, then we’d have to follow that with definition with the words Christ reserved for them (Matt. 23) to help us understand just where we stand today, speaking collectively.
P.S. Anyone curious about Ron Poelman and his thoughts on the differences between the church and the gospel should read this.
I was reading Hawkgirls post again, I don’t think the OP was about defending weather or not the gospel was right/wrong.
I think the point of the OP was how we in general discus Topics as either extremes being right or wrong. Did I miss something Hawk?
Andrew S (13) — Maybe there is a question of subjectivity vs. objectivity.
But if I have studied and had specific experiences leading me to believe, for instance, in the value of temple worship, and someone else has studied and had bad experiences in that regard, we may reach different conclusions about the value of or need for temple worship.
Is that subjective? Sure it is, because we have those different experiences. But what I accept as “true” will be influenced by my experience.
I acknowledge that there are points of fact in this world that are not in dispute. But conclusions draw from those facts will often be.
re 17:
“Is that subjective?”
Yeah, that’s the very definition of subjective. One question is why those different experiences persist. But in a way, the answer to this question doesn’t matter if we aren’t totally concerned about the objective, because if we aren’t, then we shouldn’t have a problem with others having different experiences.
But this doesn’t escape the conundrum from an objective standpoint. There *is* a Right Answer, so to speak, even if someone does not perceive it or misperceives it.
Yes, #18, you are right. But in the OP, the three salvos thrown at opposition are because the perspective of the claimants is to different. It is not the facts which are in dispute, but the interpretation thereof.
One might make the same argument in the political arena. People are vehement in their support of or opposition to the repeal of the healthcare bill. Those opinions of right and wrong are not solely based on empirical evidence.
Otherwise, two people could not view the same empirical evidence and arrive at different conclusions.
(Unless, I suppose, one is ignorant, idiotic or evil.)
Paul, you’re losing me (or maybe I’m losing you.)
Of course the three salvos thrown are because of perspectival differences. (I think sometimes the facts are in dispute, but even when they aren’t, I agree that the interpretations are.)
But the point is…there is a right answer.
It’s not that people are necessarily idiotic, ignorant, or evil. Rather, they are subjective.
This post reminds of this video I recently saw:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9s-3vy0hErA
I think the best way to figure out if you are wrong or write is by trying to be like a little child and truly listening and trying to understand the other viewpoint. Not going to happen on the bloggernacle (most of the time, it happens though, I’ve changed my ideas by reading different opinions). But the internet can change a person’s ideas, like the OP can change the ideas of people but the fighting back in forth in the comments usually doesn’t do much.
@J,
That scripture reminds me of the lesson I gave to the teachers class on Sunday where we were comparing the 10 commandments to Christ’s Teachings. I used the Pharisees rule keeping to teach about “thou shalt have no other gods before Me”. The rules became their god instead of God being their God.
I agree, the rules get to the point where they take away from the very purpose of having a church.
#21 Andrew S: Perhaps we’re in violent agreement.
Speaking for myself (I can’t very well speak for you or anyone else, can I?), I do recognize, for instance, my experiences about the existence of God, the mission of the Savior and the restoration of the gospel as absolutes. And based on my experience and understanding, I am right.
I respect, however, that there are those who do not share my experience (for reasons I do not understand and cannot judge). We are in disagreement about where truth is. But I would not hurl the three salvos at them (anymore — as a younger man I might have) just because I recognize that I’ve come to where I am over a long path, and I know that others have different gifts, different experiences, and different points of view.
That those points of view exist is interesting, but not particularly important to me, as I view my own understanding to be right. I can allow others a different view of “right” without retreating from mine.
Yes, people are subjective.
I think the second point is the one I see the most often. In debate, most people ask questions or advance positions that are riddled with assumptions (I’m sure I do the same). This makes understanding another person’s position (let alone being persuaded by it) almost impossible. Then again, in my experience most people involved in a debate have no real desire to understand the other person’s position.
# 14 J said: “There is a difference between making a change to align ones life with the gospel, and making changes to align ones life with the church. They are not the same thing.”
I wrote with the assumption that there wasn’t a difference. The gospel and the church should mean the same thing.
I agree with some of your points, but not with the same intensity. I think all, or nearly all GA are Christ centered and teach the gospel of Jesus Christ as the Savior intends. The concerns you bring up are valid but come from those in the wards and stakes that are overly church centered
I wrote a piece a while ago on the same sort of topic, http://www.wheatandtares.org/2010/09/17/your-opinion-is-wrong/. The bottom line is that much of what we are dealing with is not so much fact-based knowledge but faith, feelings, hope and resentment.
So while we can have an opinion of why you THINK someone is wrong, it is only an opinion after all. two people can interpret the same facts 180 degrees different.
I loved it when people say, “You only want things your way” to which my responce was “Who doesn’t?”
#27 – Not only CAN people interpret facts in wildly divergent ways, but they are prone to do so, depending on their existing beliefs. To Hawk’s third point, everyone with a belief structure has something to gain or lose. Consequently, we’re all going to have a tendency to want to interpret or spin information in a way that conforms to and reinforces our existing beliefs. I think this is especially true when it comes to religion. The only way to fight against that tendency is to be aware of it and try to be as objective and open as we can be. It’s very, very difficult, though, and when one is involved in an adversarial position over a certain fact or belief, it’s almost impossible to be objective.
re 24:
Paul, perhaps we are.
What I find though is that many subjective feelings cross over into the range of objective pronouncements (or at least have the tendency to). For example, in my experience, many people who want to say, “I believe there is a god” or “I believe there is no god,” imply, “I believe there is a god [for everyone.]” or “I believe there is no god [for anyone.]” As you write, because of your experiences, you believe God is an absolute. I guess that is really the nature of belief, isn’t it?
From here, you do seem to grapple with explaining “why” others don’t see that absolute. (I’m speaking for what I perceive — please let me know if I am interpreting something totally off at any time.) Perhaps you don’t throw the three salvos, but maybe you do throw similar salvos — because I think all the salvos are is an attempt to explain “why” others don’t see some perceived absolute.
And if not you, then others. Instead of, “If they only knew…” it becomes, “If they only experienced what I have experienced!” So, your next sentence becomes “I respect that there are those who do not share my experience” — which is kinda like saying, “I respect that there are those who have not learned what I have learned.” Fortunately, you add “for reasons you don’t understand and for which you do not judge”…but do you see how things can come across?
Your belief causes you to speak in a way that suggests, “God exists. Some people just don’t see it for whatever reason, or maybe God doesn’t show them for whatever reason.” What you probably aren’t thinking (or, when you think about it, it doesn’t seem compelling to you) is, “Perhaps God doesn’t exist. Maybe my attribution of certain experiences to God is personal, but in no way indicative of an objectively existing God.” Because maybe if you think that, then that means your faith is poor?
I’m not saying this is just one side. This is problematic for both sides, really. And both sides can allow others a different view of “right” without retreating from theirs, as you say, but “different” seems to me too often to come across “inferior” or “false” or “illusory.” E.g., “I allow that some people do not believe in God, but since God really exists, their position is based on seeing in a glass darkly. They lack some experience/knowledge/etc.,”
I wonder if each person has a subconscious threshold for what amount of discomfort to their personal routine would result in an ideological shift. The threshold might be reached by one extreme stress, or repeated high level stresses, or by a change in frequency of how an interaction provides a comfort response. The type of stress which would cause the shift from faith to doubt or vice versa would depend on the personality style of the person (red, blue, green, yellow).
#30 Andrew S, I think there was a time when i would have done exactly as you describe — I would have assumed the other was not as ‘enlightened’ as I. But life has taught me that other good, well meaning people (including some I know well and who are very close to me) have a different set of experiences around things I take to be absolute.
So for me they are absolute. But I can only speak for me.
That does not mean that I won’t engage in a conversation with someone who disagrees. Or invite others to experience what I have experienced. Or hope that maybe someone could feel what I do. But in the end, I know each must choose for himself. And despite all my conviction, I will never convince anyone of spiritual things. If there is any convincing to be done, it will be done by one who is at a significantly higher pay grade.
I agree with brjones. Accepting a position or opinion contrary to our own depends on how set we are on maintaining our own position and what we are prepared to give up based on changing our own stance.
Everyone has their own ‘filter’, developed over a lifetime of experience. Everything passes through this filter and we accept or discard based on whether it aligns with our own perceptions. It takes courage and a good deal of introspection to accept when our position may be wrong and to act accordingly. The more intrinsic your belief is to your perceived identity, the harder to accept a contrary belief.
re 32:
Paul, I guess I’m completely confused as to what you mean when you take your experiences to be “absolute”. Or even “absolute” for you?
I am wary of the idea that we can find “truth” as a general concept. Knowing the truth of all things implies individual things, of this thing or of that think. Lumping all truth into one umbrella leads to assumptions, which leads to error.
The post is primarily (for me) about avoiding error. And of course, these 3 salvos are like most shortcomings: easy to see in others, hard to recognize in ourselves.
I guess one thing is, talking about avoiding error presumes there is a state of affairs of errorlessness.
(which there is. Maybe we should be wary of the idea that we can “avoid error” as a general concept too?)
Andrew S – exactly. Avoiding error is an unattainable quest. The journey is the important part, IMO, since we will never be errorless. And when we start thinking we could be, we are probably in error. It’s like the beginning of wisdom is acknowledging our ignorance.
Jared
[8] “The premise of the book agrees with my life’s experience, to an extent. I think this model begins to fail when it is applied to religion though. The reason being, it doesn’t account for the interaction of the “Spirit”
The “spirit” has nothing to do with truth. Either Joseph Smith saw God the Father and Jesus Christ or he didn’t.
He either was visited by Moroni or he wasn’t.
Bottom line is, it doesn’t really matter how you feel or how you perceive the spirit makes you feel. Its either true or made up. There ain’t no middle ground.
#38,
I suppose I have to agree with you, however, we are taught that the Holy Ghost is the testifier of Truth. The problem is, there are more people running around outside of Mormonism who claim that Their Holy Ghost or Spirit is testifying a totally different version of the Truth to them.
#38 Bishop Rick:
I don’t think it’s quite as black and white as you imply it to be. Take the statement: He either was visited by Moroni or he wasn’t
Assuming 100% of people agreed with this statement, there is still plenty of room for debate as to what this implies:
– Did Moroni physically visit him, or was it a vision? Does the difference matter?
– Was the visitation absolutely a physical thing or was some of it mediated by JS own mind? (ie. “seeing” something (including Moroni) depends on light hitting a retina, passing through multiple layers of neurons, and being interpreted by the mind in the context of one’s background)
– What does Moroni’s visit mean in the context of the Book of Mormon? Is it a “direct” translation in the sense that we think, or was it Joseph Smith expressing concepts in his own inspired words?
– What does Moroni’s visit mean in light of other similar visits to other people throughout the ages? Muhammad received the Qur’an in a similarly miraculous fashion including visitation from an angel. Does the fact that Moroni visited Joseph Smith necessarily mean that Muhammad was lying/wrong/mislead/etc? Or is there room for the thought that they are BOTH right?
– Does the fact that Moroni visited Joseph Smith mean that everything he and his successor prophets said was absolute truth? If not, and if they are fallible men as well, how do we decide which of these things are true?
– Does the fact that Moroni visited Joseph Smith mean that a woman wearing 2 sets of earrings if denying God?
– Etc.
So, even for something as seemingly “black and white” as “He either was visited by Moroni or he wasn’t” means much different things to different people. And they’re all right and all wrong.
Re: # Mike 40 – add to the earrings the short missionary haircut, the white shirts, the business suits, the requisite flaxen cord around your neck, no facial hair (especially if you want to work in the temple) and a laundry list of other “cultural” doctrines for the men, and who knows what the women have to suffer through culturally.
Assuming God + Jesus visited Joseph in some way, whether it be through an actual visitation or a dream vision (we need look no further than Lehi for a good example of all the “dream visions” he had) or something else, it doesn’t necessarily follow that all of his successors preached the unadulterated, unmitigated, unsullied truth in every thing they did.
Re: #26
Where, if I may, does this idea originate? From my reading of the scriptures we have before us, church (not the church) and gospel have always been two distinct and separate ideas.
Take D&C 10:67-69 and D&C 39:6, for example, and give your interpretation – how can they be the same thing? Perhaps, idealistically speaking, the church is/was supposed to be the method of conveying – a vessel, if you will – the gospel in all its glory, but I don’t see a way that they can mean the same thing. Worse, when part of that gospel gets spilled from the vessel, that church may still maintain that it is the gospel, or the true vessel for the gospel, but some of it may be missing or purposefully lost. What then?
And, if I may, it’s my belief that many of our problems stem from this (and similar) ideas. Believing that the Church™ is the gospel, or that the Church™ is the Kingdom of God, or something similar, justifies all sorts of actions; gives all sorts of credence to any leader to justify his or her (but largely his) actions. There was, and is, a necessary distinction that is mostly lost to general Church™ membership. It may be natural for mankind to expand his sphere of influence, and for the Church™ to take on more responsibility than it was ever supposed to, but that doesn’t mean that it’s divinely inspired, or that it’s a natural result of being synonymous with the gospel or the Kingdom of God or anything else for that matter.
#34: (sigh) Said differently, I accept those as absolute truths. But in the spirit of the 11th article of faith, I acknowledge that others may not, and they are free to worship as they will.
#41 J-
A question for you, to help me understand your position more clearly.
Would you agree that the restoration that came to us through the prophet Joseph Smith gives the LDS church exclusive authority to baptize mankind for the remission of sins (D&C 49:13-14)?
#43 Jared
Although not specifically addressed to me, instead of answering your question, I would say it is irrelevant.
Now, don’t interpret this in the wrong way. There are certainly things that we teach as necessary to return to God (ie. Celestial kingdom) – such as baptism with correct authority as you mention, etc. However, only 0.1% of the world’s population are currently active LDS. Prior to 1830, the percentage was even less. Because of this, the number of people who are baptized with the LDS Church’s exclusive authority while in mortality is minuscule.
There are therefore 2 possible conclusions:
1) ONLY those baptized LDS in mortality, who hold out to the end, etc will reach the Celestial kingdom. Or,
2) It really doesn’t matter if you’re baptized LDS in mortality as long as you are a good person. Any necessary ordinances or other “hoops” to jump through) will be taken care vicariously.
Because I happen to believe number 2 (just my personal opinion), I would argue that the LDS Church’s exclusive authority is largely irrelevant for 99.9% of the earth, as it doesn’t really matter if someone receives baptism in mortality or not.
#44 Mike S-
I appreciate your response. If that is how you view it then it brings up a question: why did God call the prophet Joseph Smith and restore the authority that was lost from the earth?
The answer to that question as I see it is simple, a journey of a 1000 miles begins with a single step. In other words, even God needs to start somewhere.
Another thought is that those who accept the message of the restoration in this life need to be engaged in the work of the Lord while here, even if their numbers are minuscule.
So for me, and others it is a long ways from irrelevant.
Jared:
I agree that God called Joseph Smith. JS petitioned God, who answered him. As a result of this, Joseph Smith found other people who resonated with his message, and people still resonate with his message.
I also think that God has also answered many, many others who have petitioned Him throughout history. These people have started various movements largely based on their background, society, etc.
In Joseph Smith’s case, many of the things are a part of his environment. The Book of Mormon is phrased in language that was familiar to Joseph Smith. Many of the teachings of the early Church are in direct response to issues that were pertinent in early 19th century America. The Word of Wisdom reflected thinking at the time. The priesthood policies/doctrine that we might now consider racist were also reflections of the time.
I don’t discount any of this, so I think we are 99% in agreement about most things. Perhaps the main area in which we disagree is in the exclusive nature of what JS experienced. I think God has set up equally valid ways for other people as well in the context of their societies/backgrounds. Much of Islam incorporated issues pertinent to the Arab world. Buddhism reflects many concepts from the Hindu world from which it sprang. Lutheranism reflects issues from Christianity as well as societal trends of that time.
I think these are ALL valid ways in which God has touched Mankind. I think we will ultimately be judged by the type of people we are, by how we treat our fellowman, by the attributes we develop. Granted, there may be some ordinance that we have to jump through for some reason unknown to me, but at the end of the day, I think WHO we are is MUCH more important than what denomination we are born into/possibly join.
Jared:
How do you know we even hold authority? Can we “hold” authority? Where are the “powers of heaven”?
Christ’s message is His authority, and yet we think we can bottle that up and institutionalize it. To Mike’s point, the LDS church doesn’t have a lock on truth.
I’ll add this:
Now, as to the difference between the Church and Gospel, I’d encourage this podcast.
re 42:
Paul,
but I have no clue what you mean by an “absolute truth.”
I feel like Pontius Pilate.
“What is truth? Is it unchanging law? We both have truths? Are mine the same as yours?”
#46 Mike S-
I agree with what much of what you say.
I agree to a point with the fact that God works with people of other faiths, be whatever faith it is, excepting anything inspired by satan (I don’t have first hand knowledge about any “church” that satan started).
With that said, this line of thinking brings up D&C 76 with its degrees of glory. This fits in with your point.
Lastly, if we have access to the highest degree of glory, why worry or be overly involved with the others?
#47 J stated: How do you know we even hold authority? Can we “hold” authority? Where are the “powers of heaven”?
To answer your question, I’ve experienced the powers of heaven, so it isn’t a matter of “believing” for me. If you’re interested in more details, clicked my name and go to my blog and see “my experience with the Savior”.
Jared:
The reason I worry about the others is simple: Our attitude can be seen as very condescending – which bothers me.
A perfect example: Just this past week in Sacrament meeting our stake president spoke. His topic was about not bothering our overworked bishops with minutae which other people can (and should) handle. I agree with that.
However, to introduce the topic, he gave an example of a non-LDS minister who helped a friend of theirs through a very trying time. He mentioned how the minister spent quite a bit of time with the friend and made a great difference in their life. All very good. But then the stake president said, “Well, the minister should have spent the time – that’s what he’s paid to do. And he even has two assistant ministers who are paid to do likewise.”
To me, this is a very condescending attitude and it really bugs me. But it is a natural outgrowth of the exclusive nature of our Church. And while I can maybe be smug in knowing that I’m perhaps a candidate for the “highest degree of glory”, I don’t want that. I look at all the amazing people around me who aren’t LDS, who have no interest in being LDS, who feel close to God without being LDS, etc. and I honestly can’t imagine a plan where they will go to a different place than me, merely because I happened to be born LDS and they happened to be born something else.
This is obviously at odds with the official Church teachings from JS on down, where all other denominations are an “abomination”, but it’s how I feel. I wouldn’t want to go to a “highest kingdom” without all the other good people around me as well.
#51 Mike S-
When I said others, I meant their doctrine, not the people.
LDS foundational thought says: Where much is given, much is required. And a corollary injunction, the greatest among us is a servant.
We need to be careful to avoid the appearance of being condescending.
Now, all of these high and mighty ideals are something all LDS need to reach for, but are ultimately beyond our grasp while in this fallen world. The only way to them is through the powers of heaven and even then it takes time and patience to acquire the necessary sanctification.
Joseph Smith put it this way:
When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top and so it is with the principles of the Gospel – you must begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world; it will be a great work to learn our salvation and exaltation even beyond the grave.” (Teaching of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 348)
Jared:
An honest question. I have read your account of your profound experience and I appreciate your willingness to share it. I also understand its impact on your life and how it has confirmed that the path you are taking (ie. our Church) is the path you should be on.
My question: There are other accounts from people equally as profound as yours confirming that God absolutely wants people to be on their (non-LDS) paths. How do you account for this? Is this God confirming that perhaps contradictory paths are true for different people? Do confirmations of the LDS path imply that other people’s confirmations are wrong? Do other people’s confirmations imply that the LDS path is wrong?
What do we make of this?
Mike S
[40] “So, even for something as seemingly “black and white” as “He either was visited by Moroni or he wasn’t” means much different things to different people.”
It is that black and white. The mode of visitation is not the issue. The issue is whether or not there is a being, named Moroni, that intended to communicate with Joseph Smith through some means or not. He could have spoken to him via head/stone in a hat for all I care.
It either happened or it didn’t.
J
[47] ““Well intentioned and devout followers of a false tradition rejected Him [Christ] solely because they trusted in the traditions handed down to them. They wrongly believed God would never send someone to tell them anything important unless he were to occupy a position of authority among them. And so they rejected our Lord because He was not in the hierarchy. With that rejection they also forfeited their own salvation. …”
1. That “false” tradition is the same one that Jesus came from.
2. If you really believe that nonsense, then you are going to be awfully lonely in the CK.
Mike S
If people do not conform to the path for exaltation, they will live separately and singly forever and ever. Question answered? Same as in life. If I see something I want in life either concrete or abstract, I have to look at what the cost is and if I don’t pay that cost, I am not going to get it.
Henry,
The problem some people have with that line of thinking, involves the notion that God is a just God, who is no respecter of persons.
I suppose you could say that without the Lord, we are all children of Wrath who deserve nothing more or less than to perish. That if God should choose to save a few lucky people who stumble across the “path for exaltation,” that’s His business, and the damned have no reason to complain.
And yet that’s hard to square with our notions of justice, and with the idea of God being our Parent. We would question a mortal parent who lavished gifts on one child, and left the other one — call her Cinderella — out in the cold. So if God makes salvation available to one, we reflexively think He ought to make it available to all.
And yet, that doesn’t seem to be the case. I would imagine that the vast majority of people who are genuinely convinced that the LDS Church has marked out the one true “path to exaltation,” are doing their level best to follow it. But that it is the one true path, is not obvious to everyone. I’d venture to say that it’s not obvious even to all people of good will. And in my experience, whether a person is convinced by Joseph’s story, doesn’t always depend on anything that bears on his worthiness or honesty. Sometimes it’s nothing more than an accident of temperament, or of fate and geography.
I would guess that the one thing that has traditionally made religious believers most obnoxious to others, is the idea that the Honest in Heart automatically recognize truth when it is presented to them. Those who don’t — well, they must be Bad People. (The Catholics traditionally said this about people who weren’t convinced of Aquinas’s five philosophical proofs of God’s existence — which group includes me, at least with respect to a couple of them.)
There are good reasons why good people may disagree. Moralizing disagreement — jumping to the conclusion that disagreements must arise from the other guy’s wickedness — carries the potential for no end of nastiness.
Thomas:
Certain thing sin life are hard and immovable. They say that whatever kingdom you inherit you will be able to abide. There are certain things in life that you cannot fake. I could go through the motions and pretend that I am a surgeon. And yet when people are looking at me expecting me to perform surgery, I won’t be able to. I cannot abide it and will run from the room. If you do not pay the price, you will not be able to abide the celestial kingdom. You won’t be comfortable there. It’s all about paying the required price. Why disguise or hide this from non-members or invvestigators?
1. You will be presented the the true and everlasting gospel and will have a chance to accept or reject it.
2. Either choice comes with consequences.
re: #50 – there is a fundamental difference between professing to hold “something” and actually holding that thing. The priesthood is not something you can hold or touch, I would argue. “Ere he is aware.”
Even if/when we experience the divine, and the powers of heaven, that is a momentary experience. Life is a collection of momentary experiences – each moment making up our life. If you experience the “powers of heaven” for a couple of those moments, that doesn’t prove that you have the ability to “control” or “use” those powers but when you’re following the prescriptions laid out in D&C 121. And even then, it’s not so cut and dried.
re: #55
Nonsense? You mean my belief that God isn’t restricted to institutional/LDS boundaries? Stakes. Lots of them.
Just in case you’re not wanting to click that link, I put the direct quote here:
That logic kind of reminds me of the following scripture:
J
Life has cold, hard consequences. You have to watch what you do in life because only a short time here in mortality determines where you will be for eternity. Satan knows this and is waging a very effective tool. Massive complacency.
Well, Henry, you’ll have to excuse me if I don’t buy your “cold, hard consequences” view of life. Or, if I don’t buy your “you have to watch what you do in life” mantra.
Truth be told, it’s not that I disagree with them, just that I disagree with the spirit of fear that underscores those ideas. I have a long term view of life. It doesn’t start here. It won’t end when I die. To think that I have the “experiences” needed after one go around on this merry-go-round of life is ridiculous in the extreme (my view).
I haven’t always seen life this way. There are, however, a couple of things I’ve read in the past couple of years, and seen, that have influenced my change of mind. I might recommend this link (contains a short video that necessarily refocuses our perceptions) and watch the story of that young boy and his experience for a start.
Notably, though, even if this is the only go round, I’m not going to live in fear of deception, or fear of the boogeyman, or fear of Satan, or fear of a “cold, hard consequence” or anything else for that matter. I might suggest this book as a contrast to just what God’s love might entail and what that really means for us.
That’s just me.
Sounds good but that doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t watch what you do. People that are doing wrong typically will try to dress up or embellish the situation to make it more palatable. By all means one should enjoy his or her life but you do have to be careful as well. I cannot expect to inherit the celestial kingdom after a lifetime of disobedience and refusal to repent.
#53 Mike S asked: “There are other accounts from people equally as profound as yours confirming that God absolutely wants people to be on their (non-LDS) paths. How do you account for this?”
I don’t have any special insight into this question. I’ve never encountered someone outside of the LDS faith who claims to have been born again by receiving a remission of sins by fire and the Holy Ghost.
I do know of people from other faiths who have been healed, protected, warned of danger, had inspired dreams, talked to deceased relatives, learned things about God from the scripture, had manifestation of the Holy Ghost, etc.
Then there are those who are “inspired” by God to teach moral and ethical principles and formed a religion. You’ve spoken of Buddhism, I think people like him are experiencing God at some level. I think we would refer to this as the light of Christ.
But these kinds of experiences are not the same as what is taught in the Book of Mormon under the heading of the doctrine of Christ.
J
{59] “Nonsense? You mean my belief that God isn’t restricted to institutional/LDS boundaries? Stakes. Lots of them.”
No, your belief that someone is punished or rewarded based on what they believe.
J
[62] “Notably, though, even if this is the only go round, I’m not going to live in fear of deception, or fear of the boogeyman, or fear of Satan, or fear of a “cold, hard consequence” or anything else for that matter. I might suggest this book as a contrast to just what God’s love might entail and what that really means for us.”
Perhaps I misunderstood you.
Now you’re putting words in my mouth Rick. You might want to go back and verify that first.
I never said (or implied) what you asserted. If you carefully read the quote, and process it, you’re realize that (a) it was a quote and (b) it says nothing about someone being “punished or rewarded based on what they believe.” It did talk about rejecting the Savior because of institutional traditions that prevented people from recognizing the Savior, but then we do the same thing today, so I can’t really fault them.
#59 J- wrote: “Even if/when we experience the divine, and the powers of heaven, that is a momentary experience…If you experience the “powers of heaven” for a couple of those moments, that doesn’t prove that you have the ability to “control” or “use” those powers…”
My experience with the “powers of heaven” has come through the tender mercies of the Lord. I have no control over these powers in and of myself. But I have had hundreds of answers to prayers that I’ve recorded in my journal. As a result of this my faith has grown to the point that I know Heavenly Father will answer my petitions, if it is His will. This is true in big and little things. I believe LDS live way below their privilege to access blessings. God is more willing to bless us than we give Him credit.
Regarding our reluctance to really commit Brigham Young put it this way:
…I can charge you with what you will all plead guilty of, if you would confess the truth…you dare not quite give up all your hearts to God, and become sanctified throughout, and be led by the Holy Ghost from morning until evening, and from one year’s end to another. I know this is so, and yet few will acknowledge it…it is for you and I to wage war with that principle until it is overcome in us…JD 2:134
Jared. Some examples, which in many ways sound just like your story and those of countless other LDS people I know:
From someone struggling with their faith, after long prayers to God: I immediately fell to the floor and knew I belonged to Allah. … My heart is humbled daily as I am constantly reminded that my life is His. Allah has always had a hand on my heart and a voice in my mind. I finally just chose to listen.
We felt the blessings of the Lord pour forth upon us as we sat before God. We had come home to the religion of our souls. We experienced so much love, joy and emotion, and it affirmed our beliefs that we are Hindu souls
From an evangelical:
What a joy it is to know beyond all shadow of a doubt that there really is a God. Not just to believe there is a God and leave it at that, but to have personally experienced His presence in my room. That was the morning my doubts about God and Jesus Christ changed forever!
These stories go on and on.
Mike S–
I consider you a brother and an internet friend. I respect and admire your post and comments. I want to respond to you when you inquire of me in the best way I know how. I feel accountable to God for what I say. I decided to be open with my experiences with the hope that it would increase faith. I never want to come across as superior in any way when I speak of the sacred things I’ve experienced.
With that said, I very humbly say that what the Lord gave me was a gift, a tender mercy. I can’t say why He would do such a thing for me.
I didn’t understand the greatness of the gift He gave me when I first received it (remission of sins). Later as I studied I realized more completely that receiving a remission of sins by fire and the Holy Ghost is the First Comforter and opens the door to receive the Second Comforter. It is to become a son or daughter of Jesus Christ. It is a blessed and holy thing.
What I am saying, what I experienced isn’t the same as what your quoted in #69. The only place I am aware of this kind of blessings being received is among LDS.
Jared:
I consider you likewise and appreciate what you have shared. I did NOT quote those stories suggesting you were smug or anything similar. I think you have had a great experience and am glad you have shared it. I truly respect people’s experiences like yours.
Perhaps my biggest issue is that I have heard similar stories from MANY people. They all use different words in an attempt to describe something that can’t really be described by words. But they all have a common thread of someone touching the Divine. After the experiences, people feel a confirmation that God accepts them and that they are exactly where God wants them to be.
I truly wonder how this can be so when many of the faiths (including ours) imply that someone else’s faith CANNOT be correct if that person’s has been confirmed to be true.
All I can do is accept everyone’s experience at face value. For that person, perhaps they are exactly where God wants them to be. Perhaps we all truly do have different paths back to God. Perhaps it is wrong for a Muslim to suggest that an LDS person is “wrong”, or for an Evangelical to suggest a Hindu is “wrong”, or for an LDS to suggest an Evangelical is “wrong”. I think we lose much when we suggest someone else is misguided or deceived when their experiences are so similar to our own and just as real to them.
It seems to me that Jared must preserve the uniqueness of his experience no matter what. So, no matter how you talk about alternate experiences that others have had, if you don’t describe something exactly as Jared has described (which is probably a unique LDS description of phenomenon), Jared can always say, “That was different. What I experienced was different and can only be experienced among LDS.”
I’m sure that there are plenty of actual “Jareds” in other religions who argue just as strongly for their religious experiences in other traditions…and, looking through the vocabulary and phrasing and idiosyncrasies specific to their faith, they’d probably look at Jared’s description of his experience and say, “Yeah, he experienced something different. What I’ve experienced is better, more complete, etc., and can only be received among Catholics/Buddhists/evangelicals/Hindus/etc.,”
#71 and #72–
I agree with Mike S that LDS shouldn’t reduce the significance of the sacred experiences that occur in other religions. I believe there are many paths to God. From LDS doctrine there are three ways God communicates to mankind by His Spirit:
1. light of Christ
2. Holy Ghost
3. Gift of the Holy Ghost
LDS doctrine says church members can have access to the gift of the Holy Ghost. When this is done there are certain qualities that attest to its presence. I know enough about the gift of the Holy Ghost to recognize its manifestations. So far, I have only found it among LDS. The manifestation of the light of Christ and the Holy Ghost can be seen all over the world, in many religions.
God loves all His children and will give all the same blessings based on His position as our Heavenly Father. He is no respecter of persons.
Jared, yep, it is just as I said.
You NEED for there to be something special for LDS people. You call it, in LDS terms, the gift of the Holy Ghost. So that way, you don’t “reduce the significance of the sacred experiences that occur in other religions.” You just assert that they aren’t the most complete, most divine, or most sacred of experiences that people could have *if* instead they were LDS.
And in fact, because you “know” enough about the other, lesser manifestations, you can easily convert others’ spiritual experiences to those lesser manifestations.
Andrew S-
Your, “yep, it just as I said”, conveys the idea that you’ve discovered something that LDS should feel bad about. If that’s the case then I hope you won’t be too disappointed.
The LDS position has always been that the Lord called the prophet Joseph Smith to restore what had been lost. That means there is one path to the celestial kingdom, and that is in the way the Lord revealed it to his prophet. There is no other way.
However, there are other paths (other faiths and traditions) that lead to the ultimate path and that is what Mike S and I have been discussing. He might not agree with it, but to the best of my knowledge this is the churches position. There are multiple degrees of glories because there are all kinds of ways to exercise agency.
I think this is a very interesting discussion, especially in light of the original post. The interesting facts to me are:
1) There are people of all faiths who, like Jared, have had a profound experience that confirms something to them regarding God and their particular religion as being “correct”.
2) Once someone has had this profound experience, they then try to explain “Why Other People Are Wrong”. This is a necessary and logical result from #1 – if someone has confirmation that their particular “experiment” in finding truth is right, and if their faith teaches that they are the “one true way”, then by definition, the others are Wrong. People try to soften the blow by saying others are “mostly” correct, or they may get to a “high” (but not the “highest”) glory, or that they will someday have the chance to accept the Truth, or whatever, but the underlying premise is that everyone else is “wrong”.
3) This leads to the situation where LDS people feel that non-LDS people (in this life or the next) aren’t going to reach the Celestial Kingdom. Or where Evangelicals feel that LDS are damned. Or where Muslims feel that all Christians, while good people and people of “The Book”, are ultimately denied the highest reward. Or where Buddhists feel that an LDS member is still stuck in Samsara because they are still clinging to misguided ideas but if they live good lives that they may have a chance to become a Buddhist in the next lift (much like we say the same about them).
The thing this most reminds me of is Light. There are experiments historically done that confirm that light behaves exactly like a particle. You can shoot a single photon of light at a detector and measure individual “particles” of light. Someone could point to this and say that light is absolutely a particle, and they would be correct.
Someone else could do an experiment and show that light is a wave. They could set up a screen and shine a light on it and there could be waves that interfere with each other. People doing this experiment might be absolutely convinced that light is a wave, and they would be correct.
The issue comes when these two people talk. One person might say that light CAN’T be a wave because they have absolute evidence that light is a particle. Another person might say that light CAN’T be a particle because they have absolute evidence that light is a wave.
At the end of the day light is both, and they are both right. It took scientists a LONG time to accept this because it seems so counterintuitive to our minds. It still seems counterintuitive to people who haven’t studied it.
To me, this is the answer for the topic we’ve been discussing. For every member of the LDS Church who sincerely and honestly feels that they have received an answer from God that the LDS Church is absolutely true, there are a thousand people who sincerely and honestly feel that they have also received an answer from God that their religion is true.
How to resolve this? Several possibilities:
1) We are all deluded. There is no God. Religion is a mindset that humans have evolved for various reasons. We all get confirmation of what we expect. This is saying that there is NO light, that what we perceive as light is merely a function of the fact we are observers, and that the experiments reflect this (sounds kind of crazy, but not really under many philosophical systems)
2) There truly is only one correct religion. This implies that only the minute percentage of the world who belongs to that religion have received “correct” confirmation and the billions of other people have “incorrect” confirmation and are wrong. This is like someone who says that because their light-particle experiment is correct, the light-wave experiments are all wrong and those people are misinterpreting things.
3) There is more than one correct path back to God, and God confirm all of these for sincere petitioners. While this may seem unacceptable for someone who has had a belief system confirmed that states that no one else is “most correct” as well, this seems to be the only explanation that makes sense to me. It might seem as strange as light being both a particle AND a wave, but it is what it is.
re 75
Jared,
I don’t disagree. I just think LDS people should recognize that ultimate, they are saying, “I am right and you are wrong.” You can skirt around this by saying things like, “Well, other people are “less right” and they have “less light.”” But ultimately, if you want the big prize of exaltation, then one way or another these people are going to have to get with LDS ordinances and rituals. Mike elaborates on this in 76.
re 76:
Mike, there actually is/are a few other possibility(ies).
We are all deluded. There is a God. Religion is a mindset humans have evolved for various reasons. We all get confirmation of what we expect. This is NOT saying that there is no light, but that what we perceive as light *is* merely a function of the fact we are observers, and the experiments reflect this. (This is akin to what is being said when people note that what is “observable reality” or “scientifically empirical” may not be all of reality…but then they assume that we can understand the rest of reality through a method like spirituality. But it could be that “spiritually discernible reality” may not be all of reality, or that it is not reality at all.)
This combines with number 2 in this way:
There truly is only one correct religion — but we don’t have it. Billions of others have incorrect confirmations and are wrong. It’s not so much as saying that because the light-particle experiment is correct, the light-wave experiments are all wrong and those people are misinterpreting things, but more like since we have a history of dramatically misinterpreting things, our light-wave experiments may be just as flawed.
Despite the bleakness of that, it seems more plausible to me than “everyone is right.”
I once heard a guest lecturer state that spirituality is the fresh spring water of God’s love, originating at the top of the mountain and thru the wonder of gravity, trickles down to nourish all life.
However, religion is the well-intentioned plumbing that, more often than not, sends the water uphill or sends it speeding swiftly right past you.
That explanation was significant to me in terms of who the temple ceremony depicts as being the originator of “religion”:
#76 & #77
Interesting thoughts. I appreciate the discussion. I am grateful for the experience.
If I were an artist I would paint a picture of a beautiful, but rugged valley and mountain with many paths leading to three possible destinations on the mountain. The highest being the greatest destination possible where the all the paths converge into one ultimate path that leads to the top.
Below this painting I would put the words of a prophet who said:
“I am not a strict constructionist, believing that we seal our eternal progress by what we do here. It is my belief that God will save all of His children that He can; and while, if we live unrighteously here, we shall not go to the other side in the same status, so to speak, as those who live righteously, nevertheless, the unrighteous will have their chance, and in the eons of the eternities that are to follow, they, too, may climb to the destinies to which they who are righteous and serve God, have climbed in those eternities that are to come.”
Elder J Reuben Clark Jr, Church News, April 23, 1960.
Right. Eternal progression allows people to admit they were wrong and the LDS were right in the afterlife.
…or it could allow LDS people to realize that perhaps things are different (maybe it is as Mike says?)…but you can’t really believe THAT, can you?
#80 Andrew S-
I don’t think you’re seeing my point correctly. The Lord in His wisdom and love puts every person into a situation that is best suited for them. He does it with their approval because of agency.
I don’t think in the end, if both of them arrive at the ultimate destination there will be a discussion about who was right or wrong.
81 Jared,
But I don’t think you’re seeing my point correctly. (I guess this fits into the original post). You say the Lord in His wisdom and love put every person into a situation that is best suited for them. Like, really, being born into incredible poverty, abuse, and destitution is the “best suited” situation for them.
He does it with their approval because of agency, you say. But one thing that is important to note is that agency has a dependence on nature and personality…and we have personalities that bind our agency. Whether he gave us those personalities or our personalities are inherent in our primordial form as “intelligences,” this means we never are on equivalent footing.
Once again, your final argument has a subtext. I think that the reason you don’t think in the end, if both of them arrive at the ultimate destination there will be a discussion about who was right or wrong is because at the end, if both of them arrive at the ultimate destination, then whoever was wrong has already realized who was wrong and who was right.
The question is, here and now, you don’t know. But even worse, you don’t know that you don’t know.
Andrew S-
It doesn’t surprise me that we have a difficult time communicating. You’ve declared that you are an atheist, on the other hand I am on the extreme opposite side of that continuum. So what do we do about this? I suggest we respectively agree to disagree.
As a LDS I agree with our 11th Article of Faith.
My focus as a follower of Christ is not to put down, argue, contend, and belittle other peoples beliefs. I’m not going to point the finger of scorn and tell someone their faith is wrong, evil, or idiocy–because I don’t believe that. If God sends a person to this earth and they chose to be an atheist, I am going to respect their choice.
#81 Jared:
I’m not sure to know what to make of this comment. You state that each of us are in situations that are best for us. But this contradicts most of everything else that you have said. If you believe comment #81 is true, than for 99.9% of the world, God wants them in a situation where they are NOT LDS in mortality. This is hard to reconcile with the idea that everyone MUST accept LDS teachings in order to achieve the highest reward.
Incidentally, I agree with comment #81 more than most of the other ones. I do think that much of what happens to us has a cause. My thoughts on this are actually much more in line with karma, however, than in God micromanaging each little thing that happens to us.
According to karma, someone who is born into poverty, for example, may have needed that lesson because they were oppressive in a prior existence. Someone who is cheated on may have been the one cheating in a prior life. To me, this is a much better explanation than God specifically putting people in these circumstances.
Back to the point, if you suggest that “The Lord in His wisdom and love puts every person into a situation that is best suited for them” that implies that for some people Islam is best, for others Catholicism is best, and for others humanism is best. If God confirms to that person that situation is “best suited for them” in much the same way that He has confirmed to you that your situation is “best suited” for you, then how can you say that they are “wrong”, or that they don’t have a “fullness”?
Jared,
I don’t think we have a difficult time communicating at all. And even if we do, it’s not because “I’ve declared that I am an atheist and on the other hand you are on the extreme opposite side of that continuum.”
We could get into the ramifications and shortcomings of the idea of “choice” in belief now (as I’ve only hinted at for most of the discussion), but I guess I’ll instead “respectively agree to disagree.”
I’m glad that you are not going to point the finger of scorn and tell someone their faith is wrong, evil, and idiocy. But maybe I hope you’ll one day see that that isn’t the only way to convey that message.
re: #70: “The only place I am aware of this kind of blessings being received is among LDS.”
Black swan theory comes to mind.
re: #75: “The LDS position has always been that the Lord called the prophet Joseph Smith to restore what had been lost. That means there is one path to the celestial kingdom, and that is in the way the Lord revealed it to his prophet. There is no other way.”
You’re assuming, here, that the work is complete. The restoration full. Nothing more needed. The institution has institutionalized revelation, the Lord, the scriptures and everything else, so all we need to do is follow the institution. Heck, we’ve even institutionalized “Prophets” – as if time, age, longevity, wealth and grooming were the only prerequisites.
The egoistic need is very much satisfied when it joins the LDS church. All the sudden you’re “right,” you have the “truth” and you get a temple recommend to prove your “worthiness.” There is a difference between the tree of Knowledge, and the tree of Life, and their fruits. Currently, LDS doctrine is predicated on the tree of Knowledge. The latter is largely forgotten and replaced with lists, quotas, metrics, year end accounting and questionnaires. The spirit of discernment is no longer needed (or used).
Worse, as Andrew points out, we don’t even recognize where we’re screwed up. We think all is well, that there’s a Prophet at our head to guide us and reinforce us and help us feel special. After all, we have a prophet that will never lead us astray. We’re right, everyone else is deceived.
Either we choose the role of the tax collector, or the role of the pharisee.
Re: #78
You forgot to mention that while putting in the plumbing, the administrators thought it best to put fluoride, chlorine and a bunch of other chemicals to “enrich” and “protect” the water supply. 😉
re: Mike
Have you read any of Brian Weiss’ stuff?
Karma is very much an LDS belief as well, though I don’t think people believe it too much:
J:
I haven’t read much of Brian Weiss stuff (although a quick perusal of some selections on Amazon shows it’s very interesting). However, I have read many other accounts of reincarnation (
example). It is hard to explain some of these away.
Interestingly, as you mention, the LDS faith espouses at least a form of karma and reincarnation. We teach that we lived, developed, and progressed prior to this particular life. We also teach that we will live, progress and develop after this life. Some prophets have taught that we will live “on this earth”. We are told that the spirit world is “on this earth”. As are also told that our state here is at least in some ways dependent on things we did prior to this life. And similarly, we are told that our state after this life is based on what we do here.
There are many similar concepts.
“I cannot expect to inherit the celestial kingdom after a lifetime of disobedience and refusal to repent.”
Well, what if it turns out that Mohammed was the true prophet — and so you’ve spent your lifetime disobeying the commandments to pray five times a day, go on pilgrimage, and eat no bacon?
Admit it: You know there is no God but Allah, and that Mohammed is his prophet. But you just love bacon too much to admit it.
I know I do.
Mike: thanks for that link. I’ll have to peruse it as it seems interesting.
In the meantime, I’d recommend watching the video (linked here) about a boy who claims to have picked his parents and his experience as a fighter pilot on the USS Natoma. Certainly gives some perspective.
Jared 75
what do you believe was lost that Joseph Smith restored?
“If God sends a person to this earth and they chose to be an atheist, I am going to respect their choice.”
Condescension is an interesting way of showing respect.
“The Lord in His wisdom and love puts every person into a situation that is best suited for them. He does it with their approval because of agency.”
One interesting thing about this “Saturday’s Warrior” theology is that billions upon bilions of people have been sent to the earth in a place and time that they never heard of Jesus or had the opportunity to be tested. I guess a lot of people, when given the opportunity to be tested with knowledge of him, opted out.
#92 Brian–
Ain’t agency great.